[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
