Hi Pinax devs,
I was looking at the changes in requirements.txt for various projects in the
fresh-start branch, and tried upgrading an existing project of mine to use
the newer version of django-staticfiles, 1.0.1. After renaming some
directories and templates, and looking up the new settings variables needed,
and tweaking urls.py, I wondered: Is there a compelling reason to continue
to have the django-staticfiles external dependency, instead of using the
almost-identical django.contrib.staticfiles now in Django 1.3?
I'm guessing the reason is that the app/1.0.1 version has
the LegacyAppDirectoriesFinder (currently, django.contrib.staticfiles does
not have that) for older apps that Pinax relies on, that still use a media/
directory instead of the new standard static/ naming convention. If so, it
would be good to hear a core dev confirm this please.
As it stands there's definitely room for confusion, e.g. in the site-wide
urls.py, if one has dynamically generated content (from apps like
photologue) that needs to be served with the dev-server/runserver, one needs
to use:
from django.conf.urls.static import static # Note that staticfiles.urls
version of static currently fails with document_root kwarg
urlpatterns += static(settings.MEDIA_URL, document_root=settings.MEDIA_ROOT)
Also, the previous pattern in urls.py of,
if settings.SERVE_MEDIA:
urlpatterns += patterns("",
(r"", include("staticfiles.urls")),
)
...doesn't help with serving such media files as it used to, one needs the
explicit static() call above.
Thanks.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Pinax Core Development" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pinax-core-dev/-/Z3J3SFo2SjhKRUlK.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/pinax-core-dev?hl=en.
