From owner-freebsd-python@freebsd.org Sun Jul 23 08:43:21 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-python@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B61E4CFC28E for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2017 08:43:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D7B27D62B for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2017 08:43:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 9CE20CFC28D; Sun, 23 Jul 2017 08:43:21 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: python@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C6F1CFC28C for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2017 08:43:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8189D7D62A for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2017 08:43:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v6N8hK4Y032589 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2017 08:43:21 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: python@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 220927] www/py-requests: Latest net/py-urllib3 update breaks version requirements, causing py-certbot / py-salt to fail to run Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2017 08:43:20 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: koobs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: cpm@freebsd.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback+ X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-python@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Python issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2017 08:43:21 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D220927 --- Comment #21 from Kubilay Kocak --- (In reply to Jan Beich from comment #18) I don't mind that method and it has the same issues with multiple patch-fil= es patching common files, patch ordering, etc so no real trade-off is obvious. The intent of my comment requirements is that patches are documented and referenced (to the extent that they can be), and reported upstream (where t= hey can be) and so that our future selves don't need to waste time hunting for = the 'why' behind the what. Both methods (comment in patch) or PATCHFILES is approved as long as the existing patches/comments are maintained and the patches are tested --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=