Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 18:16:31 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: python@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 193316] [NEW PORT]: www/py-djblets06: Legacy version of py-djblets Message-ID: <bug-193316-21822-ZwhP69NaYF@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-193316-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-193316-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193316 --- Comment #27 from Jingfeng Yan <yan_jingfeng@yahoo.com> --- (In reply to chris.dukes.aix from comment #26) > TL;DR Why not drop www/py-djblets and www/reviewboard until these problems > are sorted out for higher impact python ports? > > > As the only package the depends on www/py-djblets is www/reviewboard, is > www/reviewboard of sufficient value as packaged for ports to justify its > existence vs a pointer to a playbook to deploy reviewboard in a virtualenv? > > Granted, neither www/py-djblets nor www/reviewboard are packaged on pypi by > the upstream author such that 'pip install reviewboard==version' actually > works. > > Supporting python based web applications, I found there was more value in > allowing the developers control over the pure python modules used rather > than depending on native packages. > > Having native packages for python modules was much more useful for hard to > build modules like PIL, long to build modules like scipy and numpy, and > modules with tight coupling to native libraries (ldap, databases, ssl), or > used by low level tools like ansible. > > A quick conversation with the upstream developer for these packages to put > the source on pypi, and deprecating these ports on FreeBSD would be the > least effort to provide the most usability. Revisit it when we have > reasonable mechanisms for providing a python package for multiple versions > of python. Thank you for your explanation and comments. I have observed that some python ports already have different versions. For example, django-pipelines. I did quick try for using django14, and django16. The results are negative, both hot internal server error. I checked the seafile, they are pushed from django14 to django15 in mid of 2013, which took quite some efforts. When I use django14, I have not found out where is exact error because the application current log file did not show the exact error. I am hesitating to debugging it further. For using django16, extra python port efforts are required, including - django-pipelines 1.3.23+ - djblets 0.8.12 (can not port directly, only manually install) - pillowfight 0.2 In such case, I would suggest doing similar way as django-pipelines, which suggest keeping the 0.6 version. I check the Linux side port for this djblets. Debian system only carries 0.5 version (named python-django-djblets), and discontinue to have further version. The RPM for FC seems to have all the versions, but I don't know much of that system how they maintain dependencies (I thought they just build native and repackage the py modules). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-193316-21822-ZwhP69NaYF>