On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 01:29:54PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Okay, here's some diff's to the current python-django14 package that will
> make it parallel installable. Once you have the parallel installable
> package you may also have to modify a few things in the dependent packages
> to make
On 2014-02-21 10:55, Matthias Runge wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 01:28:54PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> +1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but
>> not ther
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 02:41 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 02/21/2014 02:06 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On 02/21/2014 01:58 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Has
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:41:31PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm having a parallel conversation about this with Toshio on
> > #fedora-devel right now. He believes it may be possible to get
> > Django to be parallel-installable on the base system without SCLs
> > and is running
> From: sgall...@redhat.com
> To:
> Date: 02/21/2014 14:41
> Subject: Re: python-django update to Django-1.6
> Sent by: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/21/2014 02:06 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 02:06 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 02/21/2014 01:58 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Rung
> From: mru...@matthias-runge.de
> Date: 02/21/2014 13:11
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 08:40:52AM -0500, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
> > I too would much prefer this approach. For somebody like me who wants
to
> > maintain company-private packages based on django, this affords more
> > flexibi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 01:58 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500,
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >> +1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but
> >>
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 01:28:54PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >> +1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but
> >> not there yet and it is painful to have to kee
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 07:57:34AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Have we sorted out how exactly we want to build this in Fedora? I'm
> still in favor of killing off the python-django package in favor of
> python-django16 and python-django15.
We haven't sorted this yet. Still I'd prefer a kind
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> +1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but
>> not there yet and it is painful to have to keep an older Fedora
>> Version
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> +1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but not
> there yet and it is painful to have to keep an older Fedora Version
> running just because of that.
I hear you! My current plan would be, to provide at least a
python-
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 08:40:52AM -0500, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
> I too would much prefer this approach. For somebody like me who wants to
> maintain company-private packages based on django, this affords more
> flexibility. I realize it may always mean more packaging work to keep
> sev
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 08:40 -0500, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
> > From: sgall...@redhat.com
> > Have we sorted out how exactly we want to build this in Fedora? I'm
> > still in favor of killing off the python-django package in favor of
> > python-django16 and python-django15.
>
>
> I too would
> From: sgall...@redhat.com
> Have we sorted out how exactly we want to build this in Fedora? I'm
> still in favor of killing off the python-django package in favor of
> python-django16 and python-django15.
I too would much prefer this approach. For somebody like me who wants to
maintain compan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/2014 02:48 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
> On 02/20/2014 08:19 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
>> Just to bring this thread back to life, we're getting to a point
>> where support for Django 1.6 is becoming more and more
>> necessary. Is there
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/20/2014 08:19 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> Just to bring this thread back to life, we're getting to a point
> where support for Django 1.6 is becoming more and more necessary.
> Is there an ETA on its inclusion in Rawhide or COPR?
>
Whah,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/26/2013 08:41 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 09:07:55AM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> recently, I saw a few requests to update python-django to
>> Django-1.6, the corresponding bug is [1].
>>
>> As there ar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/26/2013 09:31 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 08:59 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 11/26/2013 08:34 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 12:02 +0100, Matthias Ru
On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 08:59 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/26/2013 08:34 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 12:02 +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
> >> On 11/25/2013 06:51 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 11:24
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/26/2013 08:34 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 12:02 +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
>> On 11/25/2013 06:51 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 11:24 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>
>
This is kind of why
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 09:07:55AM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
> Hey,
>
> recently, I saw a few requests to update python-django to Django-1.6,
> the corresponding bug is [1].
>
> As there are quite a few changes, I'd expect this update to be harmful,
> at least
> - python-django-openstack-auth
On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 12:02 +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
> On 11/25/2013 06:51 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 11:24 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>
> >> This is kind of why I keep coming back to: "Why do we have
> >> python-django at all?" I don't really see any reaso
On 11/25/2013 06:51 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 11:24 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>>
>>
>> This is kind of why I keep coming back to: "Why do we have
>> python-django at all?" I don't really see any reason why we shouldn't
>> kill off the python-django package and just carry
On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 11:24 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/25/2013 03:07 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > recently, I saw a few requests to update python-django to
> > Django-1.6, the corresponding bug is [1].
> >
> > As ther
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/25/2013 03:07 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
> Hey,
>
> recently, I saw a few requests to update python-django to
> Django-1.6, the corresponding bug is [1].
>
> As there are quite a few changes, I'd expect this update to be
> harmful, at least - py
Hey,
recently, I saw a few requests to update python-django to Django-1.6,
the corresponding bug is [1].
As there are quite a few changes, I'd expect this update to be harmful,
at least
- python-django-openstack-auth
- openstack-dashboard
will break, and won't even build any more (because they a
28 matches
Mail list logo
