Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse - Mon, 20 April 2020 at 09:18:23
> Hi,
>
> Without a maintainer it seems our django ports were lagging behind a bit.
> Here's
> an update to the latest versions of the branches we were tracking.
> Both of them contain a number of security fixes.
>
> As the 1.11 LTS bran
ping?
-f
frantisek holop, 18 Sep 2014 18:31:
> this is an update to django 1.7 (soon to be updated to 1.7.1)
> to start the ball rolling again :]
>
> changes:
>
> - py3 flavor ( django-admin.py -> django-admin{-3} )
>
> - sphinx html docs
>
> - got rid of LNAME, it just adds thousands of subs
Hi,
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:14 AM, frantisek holop wrote:
> hmm, on Wed, May 21, 2014 at 06:55:01AM -0700, Ryan Boggs said that
>> > i was also wondering, was the basehttp.py
>> > local patch ever pushed upstream? was it
>> > rejected?
>> Yes, I tried pushing it upstream some time ago but they
Hi,
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:21 AM, frantisek holop wrote:
> hmm, on Wed, May 21, 2014 at 06:55:01AM -0700, Ryan Boggs said that
>> I wouldn't mind having a py3 flavor that targets <=3.3 with a caveat
>> that it is not recommended for production use. The reason being is
>> that I think there wo
hmm, on Wed, May 21, 2014 at 06:55:01AM -0700, Ryan Boggs said that
> I wouldn't mind having a py3 flavor that targets <=3.3 with a caveat
> that it is not recommended for production use. The reason being is
> that I think there would be people here who want to get started on
> python3, at least f
hmm, on Wed, May 21, 2014 at 06:55:01AM -0700, Ryan Boggs said that
> > i was also wondering, was the basehttp.py
> > local patch ever pushed upstream? was it
> > rejected?
> Yes, I tried pushing it upstream some time ago but they didn't like
> how it was constructed nor did they do anything with
Hi,
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 1:38 AM, frantisek holop wrote:
> hmm, on Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:39:58PM +0200, Remi Pointel said that
>> could you base your diff with mine I sent recently (to update to 1.6.4) to
>> have this port working with python 3 too).
>
> my personal opinion is that we shoul
hmm, on Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:46:11AM +0200, Remi Pointel said that
> If I correctly read
> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/python3/, it should
> work correctly in Python 3.
/usr/local/share/doc/django/releases/1.6.html:
"""
Python compatibility
Django 1.6, like Django 1.5, requir
Le 21-05-2014 10:38, frantisek holop a écrit :
hmm, on Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:39:58PM +0200, Remi Pointel said that
could you base your diff with mine I sent recently (to update to
1.6.4) to have this port working with python 3 too).
my personal opinion is that we should keep
1.6.* as it is.
hmm, on Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:39:58PM +0200, Remi Pointel said that
> could you base your diff with mine I sent recently (to update to 1.6.4) to
> have this port working with python 3 too).
my personal opinion is that we should keep
1.6.* as it is. py3-django and the few
django related project
On Tue, 20 May 2014 22:27:26 +0200
frantisek holop wrote:
> here is an update for 1.6.5
> i have added py-sphinx, as i think
> the html docs are really warrented
> for a huge framework like this.
>
>
> passes most of the tests with python2.7.
>
> """
> Ran 5980 tests in 1361.618s
>
> OK (skipp
seem to be getting
>>> through to ports@.
>>>
>>> Has anyone had a chance to review this update yet?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ryan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Ryan Boggs wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>&
Ryan
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Ryan Boggs wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > ping?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Ryan
>> >
>> > -- Forwarded message --
>> > From: Ryan Boggs
>&g
; Thanks,
> Ryan
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Ryan Boggs wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > ping?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ryan
> >
> > -- Forwarded message ------
> > From: Ryan Boggs
> > Date: Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1
ded message --
> From: Ryan Boggs
> Date: Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [Update] py-django 1.5.4 - fixed
> To: "ports@openbsd.org"
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Ryan Boggs wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Attac
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Ryan Boggs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached are the updated diffs to account for the most recent security
> release. I am still having the same regression issue with version 1.5.4 as
> I indicated in my initial email so please test.
>
After reporting the issue upst
Hi,
Attached are the updated diffs to account for the most recent security
release. I am still having the same regression issue with version 1.5.4 as
I indicated in my initial email so please test.
Please let me know if there are any questions.
Thanks,
Ryan
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 10:56 AM, R
Please disregard my previous message. A few hours after I posted this to
ports, the django project released another security update. I'm going to
regenerate my previous diffs with the new update and resubmit here for
testing.
Sorry for the noise.
Thanks,
Ryan
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM,
Hi
I updated the diff to remove the unnecessary bits removed as
requested. Please let me know if additional updates are needed.
Otherwise, please commit if diff is acceptable.
Thanks,
Ryan
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Ryan Boggs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Feb 10, 2011, at 1:07 AM, "Federico G. Sc
Hi,
On Feb 10, 2011, at 1:07 AM, "Federico G. Schwindt" wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 07:39:20PM -0800, Ryan Boggs wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Attached is the diff that applies the necessary change sets (15465,
>> 15471, & 15468) from django to fix the issues mentioned in the
>> security announcemen
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 07:39:20PM -0800, Ryan Boggs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached is the diff that applies the necessary change sets (15465,
> 15471, & 15468) from django to fix the issues mentioned in the
> security announcement released yesterday. Details can be found here:
> "http://www.djangopro
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 07:39:20PM -0800, Ryan Boggs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached is the diff that applies the necessary change sets (15465,
> 15471, & 15468) from django to fix the issues mentioned in the
> security announcement released yesterday. Details can be found here:
> "http://www.djangopro
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Ryan Boggs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached is the diff for py-django 1.1. I've tested it on i386 and
> amd64 with a sample site and with the regression tests it comes with.
>
> Comments? ok?
>
> Thanks,
> Ryan
>
Hi,
Has anyone had a chance to test/review this yet?
Tha
Hi Darrin-
On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 02:20:50PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> I'm including my own diff, which is largely Ryan's.
[...]
> diff -u -p -r1.3 PLIST
> --- pkg/PLIST 24 May 2008 04:17:11 - 1.3
> +++ pkg/PLIST 1 Feb 2009 21:06:16 -
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> @comment $OpenBSD: PL
Hi,
Darrin,
I didn't mean to step on any toes with this diff. I just wanted to
try to see if I could help out with this port. Looks like I
overlooked the "notify maintainer first" direction. My sincerest
apologies.
I'm not getting any nasty crashes with this diff when running this
version with
The last step is testing. Have you been able to test this update at
all?
Ryan, I was stuck on the 1.0.0 update due to a nasty crash that needed
some time and I haven't been back to it. Were you able to run 1.0.2
successfully with your diffs?
In particular, can you use the "admin" app
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 11:47:30PM -0600, Will Maier wrote:
> Hi Ryan-
>
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 04:39:54PM -0800, Ryan Boggs wrote:
> > I saw someone post the diffs to 1.0.0 a while back but it doesn't
> > look like the port was ever updated. Since it looks like it was
> > updated to 1.0.2, I
Hi Ryan-
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 04:39:54PM -0800, Ryan Boggs wrote:
> I saw someone post the diffs to 1.0.0 a while back but it doesn't
> look like the port was ever updated. Since it looks like it was
> updated to 1.0.2, I thought I would give it a try.
Thanks for the diff. Have you contacted
28 matches
Mail list logo
