Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #10477 > unrolled thread

django-celery

Started by	Brian May <brian@linuxpenguins.xyz>
First post	2018-04-27 08:30 +0200
Last post	2018-05-01 10:40 +0200
Articles	4 — 4 participants

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

  django-celery Brian May <brian@linuxpenguins.xyz> - 2018-04-27 08:30 +0200
    Re: django-celery Michael Fladischer <michael@fladi.at> - 2018-04-27 09:20 +0200
    Re: django-celery Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2018-04-27 22:00 +0200
      Re: django-celery Brian May <bam@debian.org> - 2018-05-01 10:40 +0200

#10477 — django-celery

From	Brian May <brian@linuxpenguins.xyz>
Date	2018-04-27 08:30 +0200
Subject	django-celery
Message-ID	<vJ53j-1OA-1@gated-at.bofh.it>

Hello,

Beginning to think we should seriously think about dropping this
package. It is badly neglected by upstream, and there are now better
alternatives. Such as django-celery-results (not sure if this is in
Debian).

I attempted to fix it by upgrading to the latest upstream version (see
git repository), but there are a number of python errors running tests,
and I lack the interest in attempting to fix them (although at quick
glance some of these errors look trivial to fix...)

As far as I am aware, nothing in Debian depends on django-celery.

Any thoughts?
-- 
Brian May <brian@linuxpenguins.xyz>
https://linuxpenguins.xyz/brian/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#10478

From	Michael Fladischer <michael@fladi.at>
Date	2018-04-27 09:20 +0200
Message-ID	<vJ5PH-2Ar-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#10477

Hi Brian,

On 27/04/2018 08.22, Brian May wrote:
> Beginning to think we should seriously think about dropping this
> package. It is badly neglected by upstream, and there are now better
> alternatives. Such as django-celery-results (not sure if this is in
> Debian).

I'm completely with you on this. As the one who initially packaged 
django-celery it's time to drop it. Both its successors, 
django-celery-results and django-celery-beat are packaged for Python3 
(Python2 support can always be added if someone wants to step in) in Debian.

The only thing left to do is to find a way to do the transition to those 
new packages. I'm thinking about mentioning this in NEWS.Debian for 
django-celery as any automatic transition does not seem feasible.

Regards,
Michael

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

#10480

From	Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>
Date	2018-04-27 22:00 +0200
Message-ID	<vJhHb-37q-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#10477

On 04/27/2018 08:22 AM, Brian May wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Beginning to think we should seriously think about dropping this
> package. It is badly neglected by upstream, and there are now better
> alternatives. Such as django-celery-results (not sure if this is in
> Debian).
> 
> I attempted to fix it by upgrading to the latest upstream version (see
> git repository), but there are a number of python errors running tests,
> and I lack the interest in attempting to fix them (although at quick
> glance some of these errors look trivial to fix...)
> 
> As far as I am aware, nothing in Debian depends on django-celery.
> 
> Any thoughts?

I agree as well. Please file a bug for its removal.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

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

#10494

From	Brian May <bam@debian.org>
Date	2018-05-01 10:40 +0200
Message-ID	<vKyZj-7F-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#10480

Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> writes:

> I agree as well. Please file a bug for its removal.

See Bug#897257.
-- 
Brian May <bam@debian.org>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

csiph-web

django-celery

Contents

#10477 — django-celery

#10478

#10480

#10494