Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #15185 > unrolled thread

Bug#1052028: please update to pydantic 2.x

Started byTimo Röhling <roehling@debian.org>
First post2023-09-16 12:40 +0200
Last post2023-09-24 12:20 +0200
Articles 3 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.python


Contents

  Bug#1052028: please update to pydantic 2.x Timo Röhling <roehling@debian.org> - 2023-09-16 12:40 +0200
    Bug#1052028: please update to pydantic 2.x Salvo Tomaselli <tiposchi@tiscali.it> - 2023-09-24 11:30 +0200
      Re: Bug#1052028: please update to pydantic 2.x Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@wrar.name> - 2023-09-24 12:20 +0200

#15185 — Bug#1052028: please update to pydantic 2.x

FromTimo Röhling <roehling@debian.org>
Date2023-09-16 12:40 +0200
SubjectBug#1052028: please update to pydantic 2.x
Message-ID<HeASt-9lXc-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Source: pydantic
Version: 1.10.4-1
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-python@lists.debian.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Dear maintainer,

I would like to have pydantic updated to the latest 2.x major release,
because rstcheck depends on it.

The 2.x API has some breaking changes, but according to the pydantic
README, version 1.10.4 is shipped as pydantic.v1 legacy module.
Therefore, any reverse dependency which is incompatible with the 2.x API
can be fixed trivially at import level.

As pydantic is only weakly team managed, I am submitting this wishlist
bug, but I am willing to do the grunt work for this and provide the
necessary team uploads.

I cc'd the Python team mailing list as advance notice for the
maintainers of affected reverse dependencies.


Cheers
Timo


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=6qsd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#15211

FromSalvo Tomaselli <tiposchi@tiscali.it>
Date2023-09-24 11:30 +0200
Message-ID<HhtB8-bbWK-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#15185

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Wouldn't it be better to package it as python3-pydantic2 directly? To avoid 
breaking every software that uses it.

In that way they could just coexist and packages depending on the old one 
wouldn't all suddenly break.

Best

-- 
Salvo Tomaselli

"Io non mi sento obbligato a credere che lo stesso Dio che ci ha dotato di
senso, ragione ed intelletto intendesse che noi ne facessimo a meno."
                -- Galileo Galilei

http://ltworf.github.io/ltworf/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#15212

FromAndrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@wrar.name>
Date2023-09-24 12:20 +0200
Message-ID<Hhunv-bct7-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#15211
On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 11:25:09AM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to package it as python3-pydantic2 directly? To avoid 
> breaking every software that uses it.
> 
> In that way they could just coexist and packages depending on the old one 
> wouldn't all suddenly break.
We don't usually do such things for Python libraries when they have the
same import name.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.python


csiph-web