1.16 Release

[Jonathan Lange]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Martin Pool<mbp at sourcefrog.net> wrote:
> 2009/6/9 Vincent Ladeuil <v.ladeuil+lp at free.fr>:
>>>>>>> "martin" == Martin Pool <mbp at sourcefrog.net> writes:
>>
>>    martin> 2009/6/9 Vincent Ladeuil <v.ladeuil+lp at free.fr>:
>>    >> But, we also talked about versioning these files directly in
>>    >> bzr.dev which would address the above problem and make it easier
>>    >> to build C extensions without requiring pyrex[1].
>>
>>    martin> Let's do it, and then make the build just fail if they're not there.
>>
>> Rhaaa, I forgot to mention the most important point :-(
>>
>> So, we don't have a strict policy regarding the required pyrex
>> version. The pyrex files themselves are not heavily modified so
>> the C files shouldn't change a lot either *iff* we stick to one
>> pyrex version when committing such changes.
>>
>> The questions are:
>>
>> - should we chose the pyrex version as proposed by the
>>  Ubuntu-du-jour at the the time of the release ?
>>
>> - will pqm try to rebuild its own versions or not ?
>>
>> I know John invested quite some time on the subject so his
>> feedback is highly desired :)
>>
>> But from there I'd be happy to do the related changes if our RM
>> can't.

Your RM thinks the complexity of the conversation demonstrates that
it's not ready for 1.16. :-)

If I manage the next release, I would be happy to do whatever is required here.

> Hm, so maybe for now (ie for 1.16) we can just make sure that both
> 'make dist' (and the setup.py equivalent) and installing will fail
> unless the C files both exist and can be built?
>

+1

This would also help us on the Launchpad deployment side of things, fwiw.

I've filed bug 385453 to track this, and will ask on #bzr about how
best (or who best) to do it.

jml