Your message dated Sat, 24 May 2025 21:32:24 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#1106114: unblock: jinjax/0.57+dfsg-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1106114,
regarding unblock: jinjax/0.57+dfsg-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
1106114: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1106114
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
User: [email protected]
Usertags: unblock
Hi,
please unblock jinjax 0.57+dfsg-1:
* jinjax is a sort-of pre-processor to jinja2 templates that adds
additional functionality that is not present in jinja2 vanilla
(https://jinjax.scaletti.dev)
* it has been reported that when using certain javascript or otherwise
"code" within the templates, that jinjax chokes on it and fails to
work.
* this is due to the fact, that jinjax <=0.56 had a very crud way to
detect its own structure elements within the templates with a regex.
* jinjax 0.57 fixes this by adding a proper parser for its own
elements, the commit for this is:
https://github.com/jpsca/jinjax/pull/119
* this is the only difference between 0.56 and 0.57, as can be seen
here:
https://forgejo.debian.net/python/jinjax/commit/067f4dc8b639767b83048f1dcedd12cb438270b0
* between 0.56+dfsg-1 and 0.57+dfsg-1, there have been no other
changes to the package.
Unblocking jinjax 0.57+dfsg-1 would put a jinjax version into trixie
that is real-world usable, not just with limited "examples" as the
0.56+dfsg-1 version to the extend, that I don't think jinjax 0.56+dfsg-1
should be shipped in trixie.
Regards,
Daniel
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
On 24-05-2025 19:43, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 5/24/25 15:36, Paul Gevers wrote:
Can you please provide this as a debdiff in this bug report?
sure - debdiff is attached.
Hints added.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---
