python-django FFe for 1.0

Generally I think this is a good idea, but we really can't make a
determination until after it's out and packaged.

Yesterday was released the RC
and debian unstable has the last beta..

Django 1.0 has been released now. It would be really good if it will make it into the Intrepid repository. Django 0.96 is very old and hardly anyone uses it anymore. Even before Django 1.0's release, a lot of people were using the SVN because of how old 0.96 was getting. It makes very little sense to bundle 0.96 anymore, and if possible should really push for 1.0 in Intrepid.

I suspect you are correct, but in addition to being released it needs to be
packaged. Presumably Debian will do that in due course, but I've no idea
when.

I've been packaging it in my PPA for a while now, however I realise that most likely that won't do as it will need to be properly imported from Debian instead.

FYI, 1.0-1 just entered unstable.

OK. Who can test this package?

You cand find a thread on debian-release regarding having a Django 1.0 exception freeze for lenny:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2008/08/msg01475.html

I think most of the reasons given are also valid for Ubuntu.

I'll test the python-django 1.0 package from Debian in the afternoon.

Builds fine in Intrepid pbuilder the python-django-1.0 debian unstable package

Installs fine .. not tested yet

> OK. Who can test this package?

In my PPA <https://launchpad.net/~eddymul/+archive>, I packaged 1.0-0ubuntu1~ppa1 using 1.0~beta2+ds-1 packaging information, adding some instructions to run Django's testsuite.

1.0 passes almost all the tests: https://launchpad.net/~eddymul/+archive/+build/708241

In order for the testsuite to run in the PPA builder, I had to disable tests that needs network connectivity in tests.regressiontests.forms.fields.

I also had problem with tests.regressiontests.file_storage.tests.FileSaveRaceConditionTest in my computer, so I disabled that in my build. In my next PPA build, I will to enable this FileSaveRaceConditionTest.

http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17282477/python-django_1.0-0ubuntu1%7Eppa1.diff.gz

I will:
1. port my test-suite rules and patches to Debian unstable's 1.0-1
2. enable FileSaveRaceConditionTest
3. report back my testing results

To complete Leonel test the python-django-1.0 debian unstable package works great on intrepid.

Eddy, I know we have some ubuntu changes on this package, we have to check if there are still revelant. I know that we desactivated testsuite for the reason you have given. I had no problem with FileSaveRaceCon myself. What kind of problem did you had?

> Eddy, I know we have some ubuntu changes on this package, we have to check if there are still revelant. I know that we desactivated testsuite for the reason you have given. I had no problem with FileSaveRaceCon myself. What kind of problem did you had?

I think my problem is mostly bad hardware that overheated once in a while. :(

> I will:
> 1. port my test-suite rules and patches to Debian unstable's 1.0-1
> 2. enable FileSaveRaceConditionTest
> 3. report back my testing results

FileSaveRaceConditionTest passes just fine under Soyuz according to

http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17299076/buildlog_ubuntu-intrepid-i386.python-django_1.0-1ubuntu1~ppa1_FULLYBUILT.txt.gz

Plus one from me.

Given that Lionel will do some additional tests to have it in hardy-backports and Steve Langasek recommended it for its inclusion in Lenny, +1 from me too and FFe confirmed.

I am, probably along with others, concerned with what happens to 0.96 code that has completely depreciated in 1.0. Don't get me wrong, I want 1.0 to be in hardy-backports. Can we make python-django-0.96 and python-django-1.0 packages with a python-django meta-package pointing to the latest? I'd love to see that in hardy-backports. There's my wishlist.

Django 1.0 is easy enough to install and get working, we can all probably agree to that, however certain global scripts may behave or be named differently for an Ubuntu package user than they would a source user making less unified and hard to automate certain things.

So, my wishlist is probably not justified since it will force existing LTS users that subscribe to backports to immediately rewind to python-djano-0.96 when an upgrade suddenly breaks then subsequently fubar their database somehow. I've not been impressed in the past when similar things have happened to me, even though it only rarely happens.

Looking forward to information on how this will turn out.

It would be useful to get some 0.96 to 1.0 upgrade testing to see if there is
anything we can do in packaging to ease the transition (this would go for
Intrepid or a backport).

For hardy backport we need to backport sphinx-0.4.2 and libjs-jquery

There are changes in the code for the users developed apps

so an automatic upgrade must be notified that most 0.96 apps won't work out of the box

@Scott: I'm not sure there is something to do to help transitioning. Here is the page with the backward incompatible changes introduced in Django between 0.96 and 1.0:
http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/BackwardsIncompatibleChanges
This link is in README.Debian included in the package.
As stated in the debian-release thread quoted before, and as I can attest from my experience, lot and lot of people are now using a svn snapshot of Django. 0.96 is not really widely used. I believe a 1.0 on an hardy server is more useful than a 0.96. I understand well that it is not nice to break a Django app on an existing hardy server, but if you do not want anything to be broken on your server, you should never activate backports (I'm pretty sure we all agree on that having in this thread at least three person in the Ubuntu Server Team).

@Leonel: right, I already have a local backport (I have tested on two applications I'm working on hosted on an hardy server). jquery needs a source change (replacing debhelper 7 by debhelper 6 in dependencies) but otherwise it works very well. As I said, I think it's valueable to have a Django 1.0 on hardy server.

@Eddy: would you mind to prepare a debdiff from Debian Unstable to prepare a merge for Intrepid?

When you file for the backports, please incude your debdiff for the
dependencies. Since I'm core-dev, I can upload source backports.

> @Eddy: would you mind to prepare a debdiff from Debian Unstable to prepare a merge for Intrepid?

@Lionel: I assume you want me to `debdiff debian/python-django_1.0-1.dsc ubuntu/python-django_1.0-1ubuntu1~ppa1.dsc`. If so, you can find it attached to this comment.

Django automatically skips some tests from its testsuite if it's missing some dependencies required to run them.

This next debdiff runs more tests by pulling some packages into Build-Depends-Indep

(I just uploaded it to my PPA, and will have to wait a bit for build logs. Should be fine, but I'll report if there's any breakage).

Please have a look at http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/python-modules-team/2008-September/002869.html and consider if we want those patches too.

+1 from me.

The django developers strongly stated that with this release there will be backwards compability for years from Version 1.0 on. This is also the reason why it took so long to get the 1.0 release out. The good thing therefore, if you get it in Intrepid:
With this package Ubuntu will stay on the safe site for a long time - because of the conservative and quality-oriented work of the django guys that is in terms of YEARS - also if they include updates from time to time they will definitely not break any web project done with the 1.0 release.

I would also put the old django version out of the repository, it will not be supported anymore in terms of security bugs.

The 1.0 release was the necessary step to have a stable base - also for doing security fixes who work for all django projects because of the backwards compabiltiy from now (1.0) on.

(Sorry my english is getting worser since my long time out of the active ubuntu community *g*)

@Scott: I think that post refers to a Django app, not Django itself. So, we probably don't want those patches.

FileSaveRaceConditionTest is giving me trouble. Sometimes it passes, sometimes it doesn't (in both my local pbuilder and LP Soyuz). Django upstream folks are also having problem with it with their BuildBot. I choose to remove this test for now.

But I think it's safe to say that unstable's python-django_1.0-1 is stable enough to sync from. Attached is my "run most tests" patch against it.

On Sep 9, 2008, at 1:39 AM, Eddy Mulyono wrote:
> FileSaveRaceConditionTest is giving me trouble. Sometimes it passes,
> sometimes it doesn't (in both my local pbuilder and LP Soyuz). Django
> upstream folks are also having problem with it with their BuildBot. I
> choose to remove this test for now.

If this is what I think it is, then it's a known issue in the test
suite: the actual file-handling code in Django is fine and passes the
tests which exercise it under situations which can lead to race
conditions, but the test runner itself vulnerable to race conditions
when you run multiple instances of the test suite in parallel, since
they stomp all over each other's working data.

--
James Bennett
<email address hidden>

1.0-1 was released to sid.. It's bandwagon time!

http://packages.debian.org/sid/python-django

@Eddy: Are you close to a final debdiff for this? Please remember to do it as a merge from the current Ubuntu version to that the Ubuntu change history is preserved.

@Scott:
> Are you close to a final debdiff for this?

If I understand correctly, I should debdiff python-django_0.96.2-1ubuntu2 against my python-django_1.0-1ubuntu1~ppa3.

Am I correct? (The deb.diff is 15.2 MB. Should I upload it anyway?)

I didn't get much further than https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-django/+bug/264191/comments/24

It runs most tests in the test suite, minus some tests that require networking, and the FileSaveRaceConditionTest.

According to James Bennet, that last item is not a Django bug. Getting it "fixed" will require me to probe into pbuilder/chroot/soyuz/buildbot-land, which I don't think I'll be able to finish before Intrepid's launch.

Other than that, though, I've been using my 1.0-1ubuntu1~ppa3, and it works fine for me.

> Please remember to do it as a merge from the current Ubuntu version to that the Ubuntu change history is preserved.

I might need some help with merging the Ubuntu changelog with the Debian changelog. Which entries from Debian changelog should I include? Which entries should I not include?

@Eddy:
>Which entries from Debian changelog should I include? Which entries should I not include?

There are tools that you can use to merge, see here for more details: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/Merging

If you go for a manual merge, you can use merge_changelog: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2008-June/025584.html

In principle ALL entries from both changelogs shall be merged.

No, it's debdiff from the current Debian revision.

...... Original Message .......
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 05:15:15 -0000 Eddy Mulyono <email address hidden> wrote:
>@Scott:
>> Are you close to a final debdiff for this?
>
>If I understand correctly, I should debdiff python-
>django_0.96.2-1ubuntu2 against my python-django_1.0-1ubuntu1~ppa3.
>
>Am I correct? (The deb.diff is 15.2 MB. Should I upload it anyway?)
>
>I didn't get much further than https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source
>/python-django/+bug/264191/comments/24
>
>It runs most tests in the test suite, minus some tests that require
>networking, and the FileSaveRaceConditionTest.
>
>According to James Bennet, that last item is not a Django bug. Getting
>it "fixed" will require me to probe into pbuilder/chroot/soyuz/buildbot-
>land, which I don't think I'll be able to finish before Intrepid's
>launch.
>
>Other than that, though, I've been using my 1.0-1ubuntu1~ppa3, and it
>works fine for me.
>
>> Please remember to do it as a merge from the current Ubuntu version to
>that the Ubuntu change history is preserved.
>
>I might need some help with merging the Ubuntu changelog with the Debian
>changelog. Which entries from Debian changelog should I include? Which
>entries should I not include?
>
>--
>python-django FFe for 1.0
>https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/264191
>You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU
>Release Team, which is a direct subscriber.
>

What are the differences between the debian sid 1.0 version and this one?

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> No, it's debdiff from the current Debian revision.
>
> ...... Original Message .......
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 05:15:15 -0000 Eddy Mulyono <email address hidden> wrote:
>> @Scott:
>>> Are you close to a final debdiff for this?
>> If I understand correctly, I should debdiff python-
>> django_0.96.2-1ubuntu2 against my python-django_1.0-1ubuntu1~ppa3.
>>
>> Am I correct? (The deb.diff is 15.2 MB. Should I upload it anyway?)
>>
>> I didn't get much further than https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source
>> /python-django/+bug/264191/comments/24
>>
>> It runs most tests in the test suite, minus some tests that require
>> networking, and the FileSaveRaceConditionTest.
>>
>> According to James Bennet, that last item is not a Django bug. Getting
>> it "fixed" will require me to probe into pbuilder/chroot/soyuz/buildbot-
>> land, which I don't think I'll be able to finish before Intrepid's
>> launch.
>>
>> Other than that, though, I've been using my 1.0-1ubuntu1~ppa3, and it
>> works fine for me.
>>
>>> Please remember to do it as a merge from the current Ubuntu version to
>> that the Ubuntu change history is preserved.
>>
>> I might need some help with merging the Ubuntu changelog with the Debian
>> changelog. Which entries from Debian changelog should I include? Which
>> entries should I not include?
>>
>> --
>> python-django FFe for 1.0
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/264191
>> You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU
>> Release Team, which is a direct subscriber.
>>
>

Eddy, I can certainly understand why you were having trouble with this one. Up until the 1.0 release, Debian maintained two completely separate Django trees.. One in experimental that rather closely tracked svn, the other in sid, which tracked stable releases. The package we've shipped so far was based on the latter, but the 1.0-1 package from Debian is based on the experimental branch, so especially the changelog was.. um... an "interesting" exercise. :) What do you think of the attached debdiff? It's against Debian's 1.0-1 package.

This bug was fixed in the package python-django - 1.0-1ubuntu1

---------------
python-django (1.0-1ubuntu1) intrepid; urgency=low

  * Merge from Debian (LP: #264191), remaining changes:
    - Run test suite on build.

  [Eddy Mulyono]
  * Update patch to workaround network test case failures.

 -- Scott James Remnant <email address hidden> Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:18:47 -0700

Is this targetted toward intrepid as well as hardy-backports? I know
libjs-jquery is becoming somewhat of a dependency for django developers
and it may need to hit hardy-backports if Django 1.0.1 will find a home
there as well. I know libjs-jscript depends on javascript-common and
there is some new meta-packages/small-packages for setting up common
parameters between javascript land, web server land, etc.. I'm wondering
if those are going to be limited to intrepid as well.

This is for Intrepid. Now that it's in Intrepid, backports can be considered. See https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports#How to request new packages on how to request packages in backports.

There is an existing backport request.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/hardy-backports/+bug/267305