Bug 121884 - [patch] Update alioth.debian.org MASTER_SITES (3 ports)
Summary: [patch] Update alioth.debian.org MASTER_SITES (3 ports)
Status: Closed FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: Normal Affects Only Me
Assignee: Felippe de Meirelles Motta
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-03-19 22:10 UTC by Marcin Cieslak
Modified: 2008-05-12 18:29 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments
file.diff (1.83 KB, patch)
2008-03-19 22:10 UTC, Marcin Cieslak
no flags Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Marcin Cieslak 2008-03-19 22:10:02 UTC
http://alioth.debian.org/download.php/* links generate 
redirect to http://alioth.debian.org/frs/download.php/* 

Ports affected:

graphics/sane-frontends
misc/pinfo
mail/libpst

How-To-Repeat: 
make fetch
Comment 1 Felippe de Meirelles Motta freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2008-03-20 03:04:34 UTC
Responsible Changed
From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->lippe

I'll take it.
Comment 2 Felippe de Meirelles Motta freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2008-03-20 04:50:39 UTC
Hi all,

Please consider this patch with minor changes:

http://people.freebsd.org/~lippe/logs/ports_121884.diff

Thanks!

-- 
lippe@FreeBSD.org
Felippe de Meirelles Motta
Comment 3 Marcin Cieslak 2008-03-22 16:35:00 UTC
Just curious, why bump PORTREVISION of sane-frontends?

If you have this port already installed, this does not change much for you.
-- 
              << Marcin Cieslak // saper@system.pl >>
Comment 4 Felippe de Meirelles Motta 2008-03-23 05:08:34 UTC
Em Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:35:00 +0100
Marcin Cieslak <saper@SYSTEM.PL> escreveu:

> Just curious, why bump PORTREVISION of sane-frontends?
> 
> If you have this port already installed, this does not change much
> for you.


Hi Marcin,

Really it is an good question that I did have doubt too. Reading an
little I found that's needed bump PORTREVISION because I have changed
pkg-message to FILESDIR. I moved pkg-message because we have an patch
(see projects ideas page) to print output always that pkg-message.in
(on FILESDIR) exists.

As described on The Porter's Handbook, we should bump PORTREVISION in
this cases:

1) Addition of patches to correct security vulnerabilities, bugs, or to
add new functionality to the port.

2) Changes to the port Makefile to enable or disable compile-time
options in the package.

3) Changes in the packing list or the install-time behavior of the
package (e.g. change to a script which generates initial data for the
package, like ssh host keys).

4) Version bump of a port's shared library dependency (in this case,
someone trying to install the old package after installing a newer
version of the dependency will fail since it will look for the old
libfoo.x instead of libfoo.(x+1)).

5) Silent changes to the port distfile which have significant
functional differences, i.e. changes to the distfile requiring a
correction to distinfo with no corresponding change to PORTVERSION,
where a diff -ru of the old and new versions shows non-trivial changes
to the code.

Soon, I think that item 2 told me to bump it.

-- 
lippe@FreeBSD.org
Felippe de Meirelles Motta
Comment 5 Marcin Cieslak 2008-03-23 10:30:29 UTC
Felippe de Meirelles Motta wrote:
> Em Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:35:00 +0100

> 2) Changes to the port Makefile to enable or disable compile-time
> options in the package.
 Felippe de Meirelles Motta wrote:

> Soon, I think that item 2 told me to bump it.
> 

Hm if I read your patch correctly you do not add any new functionality
(or compile-time option) for this port this time. This is a pure
cosmetic change - using another (newer) mechanism to replace PREFIX in
the file.

For the user there should be no visible difference at all. The main
purpose of the PORTREVISION is to tell existing users of the same
PORTVERSION - "folks, it's worth upgrading this time, we fixed serious
stuff". Therefore I would advise no to bump the PORTREVISION.

I think our discussion time could be better used upgrading libpst  port
to the 0.5.2 release:-)

-- 
              << Marcin Cieslak // saper@system.pl >>
Comment 6 Felippe de Meirelles Motta 2008-03-23 14:57:21 UTC
Em Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:30:28 -0800
Gábor Kövesdán <gabor@kovesdan.org> escreveu:

> 
> > Really it is an good question that I did have doubt too. Reading an
> > little I found that's needed bump PORTREVISION because I have
> > changed pkg-message to FILESDIR. I moved pkg-message because we
> > have an patch (see projects ideas page) to print output always that
> > pkg-message.in (on FILESDIR) exists.
> >
> > As described on The Porter's Handbook, we should bump PORTREVISION
> > in this cases:
> >
> > 1) Addition of patches to correct security vulnerabilities, bugs,
> > or to add new functionality to the port.
> >
> > 2) Changes to the port Makefile to enable or disable compile-time
> > options in the package.
> >
> > 3) Changes in the packing list or the install-time behavior of the
> > package (e.g. change to a script which generates initial data for
> > the package, like ssh host keys).
> >
> > 4) Version bump of a port's shared librarty dependency (in this
> > case, someone trying to install the old package after installing a
> > newer version of the dependency will fail since it will look for
> > the old libfoo.x instead of libfoo.(x+1)).
> >
> > 5) Silent changes to the port distfile which have significant
> > functional differences, i.e. changes to the distfile requiring a
> > correction to distinfo with no corresponding change to PORTVERSION,
> > where a diff -ru of the old and new versions shows non-trivial
> > changes to the code.
> >
> > Soon, I think that item 2 told me to bump it.
> >   
> Yes, you're right, PH says that, but personally I think that a 
> PORTREVISION bump is not needed in this case. It's true that you have 
> changed the install-time behaviour, but you don't need to make the
> users upgrade the port just because of the new pkg-message. As they
> have the port installed, we can suppose that they don't need those
> instructions now.
> 
> Gábor


Right, I "fixed" it now.

Marcin, doesn't have an new version for libspt, see:

root@shire: /home/ports/mail/libpst# make extract
===>  Extracting for libpst-0.5.2
=> MD5 Checksum OK for libpst-0.5.2.tgz.
=> SHA256 Checksum OK for libpst-0.5.2.tgz.
root@shire: /home/ports/mail/libpst# ls work/
.extract_done.libpst._usr_local libpst-0.5.1

I did make an diff between these versions, but no changes.

-- 
lippe@FreeBSD.org
Felippe de Meirelles Motta
Comment 7 gabor 2008-03-24 22:30:28 UTC
> Really it is an good question that I did have doubt too. Reading an
> little I found that's needed bump PORTREVISION because I have changed
> pkg-message to FILESDIR. I moved pkg-message because we have an patch
> (see projects ideas page) to print output always that pkg-message.in
> (on FILESDIR) exists.
>
> As described on The Porter's Handbook, we should bump PORTREVISION in
> this cases:
>
> 1) Addition of patches to correct security vulnerabilities, bugs, or to
> add new functionality to the port.
>
> 2) Changes to the port Makefile to enable or disable compile-time
> options in the package.
>
> 3) Changes in the packing list or the install-time behavior of the
> package (e.g. change to a script which generates initial data for the
> package, like ssh host keys).
>
> 4) Version bump of a port's shared librarty dependency (in this case,
> someone trying to install the old package after installing a newer
> version of the dependency will fail since it will look for the old
> libfoo.x instead of libfoo.(x+1)).
>
> 5) Silent changes to the port distfile which have significant
> functional differences, i.e. changes to the distfile requiring a
> correction to distinfo with no corresponding change to PORTVERSION,
> where a diff -ru of the old and new versions shows non-trivial changes
> to the code.
>
> Soon, I think that item 2 told me to bump it.
>   
Yes, you're right, PH says that, but personally I think that a 
PORTREVISION bump is not needed in this case. It's true that you have 
changed the install-time behaviour, but you don't need to make the users 
upgrade the port just because of the new pkg-message. As they have the 
port installed, we can suppose that they don't need those instructions now.

Gábor
Comment 8 Felippe de Meirelles Motta freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2008-03-31 12:48:39 UTC
State Changed
From-To: open->feedback

Ask for maintainer approval.
Comment 9 dfilter service freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2008-05-12 16:26:56 UTC
lippe       2008-05-12 15:26:51 UTC

  FreeBSD ports repository

  Modified files:
    misc/pinfo           Makefile 
  Log:
  - Update MASTER_SITES.
  
  PR:             ports/121884
  Submitted by:   Marcin Cieslak <saper@system.pl>
  Approved by:    gabor (mentor)
  
  Revision  Changes    Path
  1.36      +1 -1      ports/misc/pinfo/Makefile
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "cvs-all-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Comment 10 dfilter service freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2008-05-12 16:29:47 UTC
lippe       2008-05-12 15:29:42 UTC

  FreeBSD ports repository

  Modified files:
    mail/libpst          Makefile 
  Log:
  - Update MASTER_SITES.
  
  PR:             ports/121884
  Submitted by:   Marcin Cieslak <saper@system.pl>
  Approved by:    gabor (mentor), maintainer timeout (> 2 weeks)
  
  Revision  Changes    Path
  1.5       +1 -1      ports/mail/libpst/Makefile
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "cvs-all-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Comment 11 Felippe de Meirelles Motta freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2008-05-12 18:29:35 UTC
State Changed
From-To: feedback->closed

Committed. Thanks!