New port intended for the devel category. A distributed VCS, based [in part] on lang/python. This port was previously abandonware. But I have adopted it, and have created a newer version. But want to wait for feedback on this version, before updating this port, to the newer port I have ready. Please find codeville.shar attached. Which is the complete port, and is STAGE-ready. Thank you for all your time, and consideration. --Chris Fix: see attached. Patch attached with submission follows: How-To-Repeat: N/A
I'm guessing portlint wasn't run on this one. The COMMENT starts with an indefinite article. I personally try to avoid double quotes in the COMMENT as well. secondly -- why is psyco even considered? From *their own* website: "Psyco is unmaintained and dead. Please look at PyPy for the state-of-the-art in JIT compilers for Python." I'd get rid of everything touching psyco.
Hello John. Sorry. I'll look at it now, and fix it. --Chris
Created attachment 143681 [details] This attached shar(1) should fix the previous issue(s). UPDATE I _think_ this should be a go. Please examine codeville.shar (attached). Sorry for the bother. --Chris
er, um. acknowledging this is a 10-second scan: 1) "COMMENT= An anarchic control version system without unnecessary re-merges" portlint doesn't complain about that? Did you run portlint? 2) i don't understand hardcoding WITHOUT_PSYCO=yes Why not: A) remove this line B) remove pre-everything target (warning makes no sense if psyco is not an option) C) remove the .ifndef(WITHOUT_PSYCO) entire section Are you trying to preserve psycho functionality? chances are this port will be removed (it should have already been removed IMO) and WITH_* knobs are basically frowned upon nowadays I thought you were going to remove all traces of psyco, what is it that you want to do with it?
oh my, psycho is already gone: http://www.freshports.org/devel/py-psyco/ shar #3 is coming?
(In reply to John Marino from comment #4) > er, um. > > acknowledging this is a 10-second scan: > > 1) "COMMENT= An anarchic control version system without unnecessary > re-merges" > portlint doesn't complain about that? Did you run portlint? > > 2) i don't understand hardcoding WITHOUT_PSYCO=yes > Why not: > A) remove this line > B) remove pre-everything target (warning makes no sense if psyco is not an > option) > C) remove the .ifndef(WITHOUT_PSYCO) entire section > > Are you trying to preserve psycho functionality? chances are this port will > be removed (it should have already been removed IMO) > > and WITH_* knobs are basically frowned upon nowadays > > I thought you were going to remove all traces of psyco, what is it that you > want to do with it? Ugh. Yes. I'm afraid this was a bit of a quickie. I have a meeting I need to attend shortly. I was hoping to get [this] back in the tree. So that I could manage the whole thing through svn(1). As I am /far/ more accustomed to that route. Sorry. If you prefer, I'll take the time to re-do the whole mess, and post another (correct) shar(1) file here. --Chris
yes please. Take your time. ;)
i guess i'm vested now...
ETA on shar#3 ?
Created attachment 143962 [details] devel/codeville [UPDATE] - OBSOLETES previous file(s) Here's the update (codeville.shar). This passes all tests; portlint(1) make fetch make config make patch make The next version, unless I decide to take on PSYCO [unlikely] will remove all references to it. In both the src, as well as plist. Thank you for all your time, and consideration, John. I hope this will meet all your [well justified] requirements. :) --Chris
I appreciate the contribution, but if it contains references to pycho then I need a new one. pycho is no longer in ports, so any reference to it is an error.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #11) > I appreciate the contribution, but if it contains references to pycho then I > need a new one. pycho is no longer in ports, so any reference to it is an > error. I'm not sure I follow. The revised Makefile explicitly does not depend, nor use PSYCO related code. So won't affect make(1) nor install. My point was regarding the [Codeville] src itself. Not so much where the FreeBSD port is concerned. Thanks for your response, and time, John. --Chris
(In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #12) > (In reply to John Marino from comment #11) > > I appreciate the contribution, but if it contains references to pycho then I > > need a new one. pycho is no longer in ports, so any reference to it is an > > error. > > I'm not sure I follow. The revised Makefile explicitly does > not depend, nor use PSYCO related code. So won't affect make(1) > nor install. My point was regarding the [Codeville] src itself. > Not so much where the FreeBSD port is concerned. > > Thanks for your response, and time, John. > > --Chris I'm re-examining this all more closely. I'll probably have an update for the update. Expect it today. I'll report back in either event, today. --Chris
are you going to get back on the horse? :)
(In reply to John Marino from comment #14) > are you going to get back on the horse? :) Good one. :) $life presented too many [unexpected] interruptions. :P But this week end looks promising. Thanks for the reminder. :) --Chris
Created attachment 144229 [details] [UPDATE] OBSOLETES previous versions FIXED/COMPLETE OK This version is ready for a commit. It has been fully tested, and everything works as anticipated/expected. In short; I think we're done here. Enjoy. :) Thanks, John, for all your time, and dedication. GREATLY appreciated. --Chris
A commit references this bug: Author: marino Date: Sat Jun 28 21:58:38 UTC 2014 New revision: 359721 URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/359721 Log: Revive devel/codeville and assign new maintainer This port was removed in September 2010 because the project (python VCS) had been abandoned for at least 3 years. The submitter adopted the project and updated it without changing the version number (hence the port revision bump). The submitter naturally becomes the new maintainer. Psyco support has been removed since psyco report no longer exists. PR: 188995 Submitted by: Chris Hutchison Changes: head/MOVED head/devel/Makefile head/devel/codeville/ head/devel/codeville/Makefile head/devel/codeville/distinfo head/devel/codeville/files/extra-psyco-patch-cdv head/devel/codeville/files/extra-psyco-patch-cdv-agent head/devel/codeville/files/extra-psyco-patch-cdvpasswd head/devel/codeville/files/extra-psyco-patch-cdvserver head/devel/codeville/files/extra-psyco-patch-cdvupgrade head/devel/codeville/files/patch-MANIFEST.in head/devel/codeville/files/patch-setup.py head/devel/codeville/pkg-descr
Okay, thanks. It wasn't perfect; you might want to check the difference from what I committed versus what you submitted on the Makefile. From memory: 1) The "Created by: " line was the same error I pointed out a few times: it has to reflect the original port creator, not the port reviver 2) You left ".include <bsd.ports.pre.mk>", ".include <bsd.ports.post.mk>" when only <options> and <bsd.ports.mk> was needed. Worse, nothing was between those includes making the mistake very obvious 3) Need to have tabs after variable definitions, not spaces, and you need to align at 2 tabs or 3 tabs. 4) the WITHOUT_PSYCO definition was dangling (did nothing) so it was removed. Your appreciation is appreciated. Not everyone does. Some folk treat this as some kind of "duty" we're expected to perform. Not every says thank you, so thank you!
(In reply to John Marino from comment #18) > Okay, thanks. It wasn't perfect; you might want to check the difference > from what I committed versus what you submitted on the Makefile. From > memory: > > 1) The "Created by: " line was the same error I pointed out a few times: it > has to reflect the original port creator, not the port reviver > 2) You left ".include <bsd.ports.pre.mk>", ".include <bsd.ports.post.mk>" > when only <options> and <bsd.ports.mk> was needed. Worse, nothing was > between those includes making the mistake very obvious > > 3) Need to have tabs after variable definitions, not spaces, and you need to > align at 2 tabs or 3 tabs. > > 4) the WITHOUT_PSYCO definition was dangling (did nothing) so it was removed. > Points well noted. Thank you! > > Your appreciation is appreciated. Not everyone does. Some folk treat this > as some kind of "duty" we're expected to perform. Not every says thank you, > so thank you! No. Thank _you_. :)) All the best to you, John. --Chris