[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
