Created attachment 193475 [details] py-sorl-thumbnail-12.4.1.patch Hello, attached is the patch from svn that updates py-sorl-thumbnail to 12.4.1 . Changes by upstream: - https://github.com/jazzband/sorl-thumbnail/compare/v10.12...12.4.1 - Note: comparision between v3.2.5 and 12.4.1 was not possible due different commit histories Changes to the port: - changed RUN_DEPENDS (assign to Django 1.11) - added LICENSE_FILE - added NO_ARCH - added DOCS option with the appropriate dependencies - changed options to reflect the new possibilities with the pluggable engines and key value stores - updated WWW - improved pkg-descr - added patch to conf.py to enable builds with sphinx for Python != 2.7 QA: ~~~ - poudriere (11.1-RELEASE amd64 + i386) for each py27 + py36 flavor -> OK - portlint -> OK
Comment on attachment 193475 [details] py-sorl-thumbnail-12.4.1.patch django metaport prefered Upstream defaults prefered
Created attachment 193488 [details] Original patch with minor changes for depends and defaults Original patch with minor changes for depends and defaults
A commit references this bug: Author: miwi Date: Sat May 26 17:14:21 UTC 2018 New revision: 470901 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/470901 Log: - Update to 12.4.1 - Changed RUN_DEPENDS (assign to Django 1.11) - Added LICENSE_FILE - Added NO_ARCH - Added DOCS option with the appropriate dependencies - Changed options to reflect the new possibilities with the pluggable engines and key value stores - Updated pkg-descr PR: 228309 Submitted by: freebsd_ports@k-worx.org Approved by: maintainer Sponsored by: iXsystems Inc. Changes: head/graphics/py-sorl-thumbnail/Makefile head/graphics/py-sorl-thumbnail/distinfo head/graphics/py-sorl-thumbnail/files/ head/graphics/py-sorl-thumbnail/files/patch-docs_conf.py head/graphics/py-sorl-thumbnail/pkg-descr
I'm struggling to understand how this was committed as "Approved by: maintainer" when the patch I rejected was used in favour of the patch I actually approved. - My patch used the same default image engine as upstream which I believe will cause less confusion for users - May patch used the Django metaport which I believed was best practice for Django dependencies I'd appreciate some clarification on why those choices were ignored.
(In reply to Kevin Golding from comment #4) No, using the django metaport is not best practice.
(In reply to Antoine Brodin from comment #5) Thanks, I had been under the impression everything was moving to the metaport so it's nice to hear otherwise. I'll phase it out in the future (having been phasing it in).