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
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 substitutions to PLIST
- got rid of the local patch
- one (non-critic
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
Hi,
Attached patch updates current to 1.5.5 which addresses 2 security
fixes (Readdressed denial-of-service via password hashers and Properly
rotate CSRF token on login) along with a handful of bug fixes.
Also, this diff removes the patch introduced in the last update as it
was included in this r
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,
Attached are diffs that bring django to the latest security releases. The
first diff titled "py-django_OpenBSD_5_3_stable.diff" brings py-django to
version 1.4.7 in the openbsd 5.3 stable branch. Tested on i386 and all
regression tests pass. I know that the 5.4 branch has been tagged but if
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Ryan Boggs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached is a diff to update py-django to 1.4.2. This update fixes a
> security issue related to host header poisoning. More details may be
> found here: https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2012/oct/17/security/
&g
Hi,
Attached is a diff to update py-django to 1.4.2. This update fixes a
security issue related to host header poisoning. More details may be
found here: https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2012/oct/17/security/
This diff has been tested on i386 and passed all regression tests. If
this diff
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Ryan Boggs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The attached diff updates py-django to 1.4.1 which addresses recent
> security issues found in django. Details can be found here:
> http://secunia.com/advisories/50021/
>
> This has been tested on i386.
>
> Please let me know if th
Hi,
The attached diff updates py-django to 1.4.1 which addresses recent
security issues found in django. Details can be found here:
http://secunia.com/advisories/50021/
This has been tested on i386.
Please let me know if there are any questions.
Thanks,
Ryan
py-django141_current.diff
Descrip
Hi,
Attached is the diff to bring py-django to 1.2.5. Mildly tested on
i386 via django's built in unit tests
FYI - This diff removes all the security patches that were added in
1.2.4p0 because this release includes them. So "patch -E" is needed.
Please test and let me know if there are any pro
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
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.djangoproject.com/weblog/2011/feb/08/security/";. I tested
this diff on i386 usi
Hi,
Attached is a diff to upgrade py-django to 1.2.4. This was a security
update that was released on 12/22. Details on the fixes are listed
at:
http://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2010/dec/22/security/
This diff has been tested on i386 and amd64 platforms with the latest
snapshots. Tests incl
Hi,
The attached diff updates py-django to 1.1.1 which was released
yesterday. This security release is to correct a recently discovered
vulnerability which is described below. I've tested on i386 and it
seems to be working ok.
Vulnerability description from
http://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/
Has anyone else had a chance to take a look at this update yet? Is it
ok? If so, can someone please commit?
Please let me know if more is needed.
Thanks,
Ryan
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Ryan Boggs
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Toni Mueller wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ryan,
>>
>> On S
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Toni Mueller wrote:
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
> On Sun, 13.09.2009 at 09:23:45 -0700, Ryan Boggs
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:32:48PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
>> > The MESSAGE file has a reference to Django 1.0, which is not
>> > suitable for Django 1.1.
>> I w
Hi Ryan,
On Sun, 13.09.2009 at 09:23:45 -0700, Ryan Boggs
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:32:48PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > The MESSAGE file has a reference to Django 1.0, which is not
> > suitable for Django 1.1.
> I will fix this and repost later today. Since there are no 1.1
> spe
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:32:48PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 05.09.2009 at 13:57:00 -0700, Ryan Boggs wrote:
> > Has anyone else tested the attached diff yet? If so, are there any changes
> > that need to
> > be made before it can be committed? Please let me know so I ca
Hi,
On Sat, 05.09.2009 at 13:57:00 -0700, Ryan Boggs wrote:
> Has anyone else tested the attached diff yet? If so, are there any changes
> that need to
> be made before it can be committed? Please let me know so I can make the
> necessary
> adjustments.
I'm just looking into it, after cre
ssary
adjustments.
Also, can someone commit if/when this is approved?
Thanks,
Ryan
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:12:08 +0200
From: Mark Patruck
To: Ryan Boggs
Cc: ports@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: [UPDATE] py-django 1.1
Tested on i386 and amd64.
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 06:21:34AM -0700, Ryan Boggs
Tested on i386 and amd64.
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 06:21:34AM -0700, Ryan Boggs wrote:
>
>
> >From: Ryan Boggs
> >Date: August 9, 2009 9:53:33 AM PDT
> >To: ports@openbsd.org
> >Subject: Re: [UPDATE] py-django 1.1
> >
>
> >On Thu, Jul 3
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,
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
django11.diff
Description: Binary data
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
47 matches
Mail list logo
