Re: Django versions
Am 07.03.19 um 09:02 schrieb Matthew Seaman: > On 07/03/2019 07:22, Antoine Brodin wrote: >> Please don't use the django metaport, this port should be removed and >> people should stop using hacks. >> Someone needs to integrate a USE_PYTHON=django in python.mk > > Let me look at that. I never did like leaving D12592 so unresolved. > > Although it would be good to have a more general solution to > multiple-flavourization. If anything in that direction is discussed, then please include me in the thread (since I do read the list, but I'm not able to follow it closely, currently). I had asked about multi-flavour support nearly one-and-a-half year ago and I was told that lack of support for more than one flavour was by design and considered to be the correct concept. There are quite a number of other weaknesses in the way flavours are currently implemented (and it cost me a lot of effort to work around them, when I took over maintainer-ship of portmaster to make it support flavours). I had given up trying top get this fixed, but it may be the right time (given some experience with flavoured ports) to reconsider some of the design and implementation choices made ... Regards, STefan signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Django versions
[Re-sending, because my original reply made it to the mailing list but not to leres@'s real mailbox due to some brokenness in SPF, but also to add a quip missing originally. Turns out that quip slightly relates to what matthew@ mentioned.] On 07/03/2019 02:32, Charlie Li wrote: > On 07/03/2019 01:55, Craig Leres wrote: >> I'm working on a port for mailman 3. I want to use django 2.1 because >> that's what I'm using on the systems I'm currently running mailman 2 on >> you can't really run different version of django on the same system). >> But it turns out a lot of ports have RUN_DEPENDS for www/py-django111. >> > I've been working on mail/mailman3 for over a year now (holy crap), > which is still in phab as D14126. It is only the core engine however. > And over the course of this time period, it was also discovered that nearly all ports using SQLAlchemy were depending on databases/py-sqlalchemy10, yet Mailman 3 hard requires what has since been added to the tree as databases/sqlalchemy12. Mailman 3 also requires some of the ports that had depended on databases/py-sqlalchemy10, which presented a problem until they were changed to databases/py-sqlalchemy12. There still exists PR 205852 as a question of handling the SQLAlchemy case, which isn't dissimilar to Django in this regard. > Upstream Mailman have architected things such that anything outside of > the core engine are officially optional. Thus, it is probably best to > have the other parts, like the Django-consuming parts, as their own > ports, like mail/mailman3-portorius and mail/mailman3-hyperkitty. > That should be mail/mailman3-postorius. And thus, the core engine should not have anything to do with Django in terms of dependencies. -- Charlie Li …nope, still don't have an exit line. (This email address is for mailing list use; replace local-part with vishwin for off-list communication if possible) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Django versions
On 07/03/2019 07:22, Antoine Brodin wrote: > Please don't use the django metaport, this port should be removed and > people should stop using hacks. > Someone needs to integrate a USE_PYTHON=django in python.mk Let me look at that. I never did like leaving D12592 so unresolved. Although it would be good to have a more general solution to multiple-flavourization. Matthew signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Django versions
On 07/03/2019 01:55, Craig Leres wrote: > I'm working on a port for mailman 3. I want to use django 2.1 because > that's what I'm using on the systems I'm currently running mailman 2 on > you can't really run different version of django on the same system). > But it turns out a lot of ports have RUN_DEPENDS for www/py-django111. > I've been working on mail/mailman3 for over a year now (holy crap), which is still in phab as D14126. It is only the core engine however. Upstream Mailman have architected things such that anything outside of the core engine are officially optional. Thus, it is probably best to have the other parts, like the Django-consuming parts, as their own ports, like mail/mailman3-portorius and mail/mailman3-hyperkitty. -- Charlie Li …nope, still don't have an exit line. (This email address is for mailing list use; replace local-part with vishwin for off-list communication if possible) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Django versions
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 8:14 AM Craig Leres wrote: > > I'm working on a port for mailman 3. I want to use django 2.1 because > that's what I'm using on the systems I'm currently running mailman 2 on > you can't really run different version of django on the same system). > But it turns out a lot of ports have RUN_DEPENDS for www/py-django111. > > One possible solution would be to change these dependencies to the > www/py-django meta port. This allows the user pick the version of django > via py-django options. But I see a bunch of ports got added last month: > > www/py-dj21-django-cors-headers > www/py-dj21-django-debug-toolbar > www/py-dj21-django-filter > www/py-dj21-django-js-asset > www/py-dj21-django-mptt > www/py-dj21-django-tables2 > www/py-dj21-django-taggit > www/py-dj21-django-taggit-serializer > www/py-dj21-django-timezone-field > www/py-dj21-djangorestframework > www/py-dj21-drf-yasg > > which are the py-django21 version of the py-django111 ports with similar > names. > > Anyway the current situation prevents folks from using py-django20 if > that's what they want. And a ton of changes will be needed when django22 > (currently in beta) arrives. > > The downside I see to changing dependencies from py-django111 to > py-django is that only the py-django111 versions of things were get > built/tested automatically (due to py-django111 being the default > version). And I think there are issues for ports that don't work with > all version of django (is there a way for a port's Makefile to know what > version of django got installed?) > > Are there other problems? > > Are there other solutions? Flavors comes to mind but I'm told "doubly > flavored" ports (python flavor vs. django flavor) are very difficult. > > Without any changes I'll need to add DJANGO111 and DJANGO21 to my > mailman 3 port and forget about folks being able to use django20. This > will be extra messy because mailman 3 is split across several different > packages. Hi, Please don't use the django metaport, this port should be removed and people should stop using hacks. Someone needs to integrate a USE_PYTHON=django in python.mk Antoine ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
