[Bug 205852] Be nicer about multiple sqlalchemy ports

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205852

Kubilay Kocak <koobs at FreeBSD.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |koobs at FreeBSD.org,
                   |                            |python at FreeBSD.org,
                   |                            |robak at freebsd.org
           Keywords|                            |needs-qa

--- Comment #17 from Kubilay Kocak <koobs at FreeBSD.org> ---
(In reply to Palle Girgensohn from comment #15)

I don't believe that's feasible.

The reason why multiple versions exist because API compatibility changes
between minor versions (perfectly ok), and consuming packages lag behind the
latest major.minor until they have a chance to update.

The pattern of creating a new fooXY and leaving dependent ports on their older
versions is because correctly, accurately and completely testing for not just
build time fixes, but correct runtime function (and/or regressions) is not
something a sweeping change can achieve, and is best left to individual
maintainers.

Yes, maintainers should be encouraged to update the dependencies.
Yes, if older versions are no longer supported, they should be DEPRECATED. 
Yes, if port upstreams have 'bumped' their sqlalchemy dependencies, the ports
should follow suite.

See Also:

Upgrade databases/py-sqlalchemy
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D908

Which is still open (CC'ing bartek@)

This is a very similar problem space to our djangoXY ports, and deserves
careful consideration.

Also why is this a Ports Framework issue, when the changes are for two
individual ports? 

I believe this needs python@ too, and it would be beneficial if any solution
applied to other instances where multiple fooXY and multiple consumers for said
ports exist, with ranged or limited dependency specifications.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.