Created attachment 147040 [details] [request maintainer] STAGE net/spread4 I already maintain net/spread, so why not spread4? :) adds STAGE modifies pkg-plist, Makefile (as necessary) Please find 2014-09-07.diff, attached. See also requisite QA log, net-spread4-QA-out, also attached.
Created attachment 147041 [details] net/spread4 QA output for 2014-09-07.diff net/spread4 Requisite QA output for 2014-09-07.diff, also attached. --Chris
As per portlint, and since spread has a special BSD-like license [1], consider adding in: * LICENSE & LICENSE_FILE (The latter only if there is a standalone license in distrubtion files http://www.spread.org/license/license.html
Created attachment 147042 [details] net/spread4 [request maintainer] STAGE net/spread4 Attached diff, 2014-09-07.diff, OBSOLETES previous. All the same, except I think I used a cleaner style, for PORTDOCS installation. See also net-spread4-QA-output, for requisite QA output. Thank you for all your time, and consideration. --Chris
Created attachment 147043 [details] net/spread4 QA output against 2014-09-07.diff net/spread4 Requisite QA log, for 2014-09-07.diff, also attached. --Chris
(In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #2) > As per portlint, and since spread has a special BSD-like license [1], > consider adding in: > > * LICENSE & LICENSE_FILE (The latter only if there is a standalone license > in distrubtion files > > http://www.spread.org/license/license.html I wondered about that. It currently uses PKGMESSAGE= ${WRKSRC}/license.txt For the license file, already included. I guess I'll give LICENSE_FILE a go. Thanks for reviewing my submission, Kubilay. --Chris
They may not be mutually exclusive considerations, and each PKGMESSAGE, and LICENSE_FILE does something different. The former is display only, the latter copies/includes the license into DATADIR. Have a read of the license link provided earlier, their may be a clause regarding something like a 'prominent message during installation' or equivalent.
Created attachment 147044 [details] [request maintainer] STAGE, LICENSE_FILE net/spread4 This is the same as the last diff. I have only added, and tested LICENSE_FILE, as requested by Kubilay. Please find 2014-09-07.diff, for details. Thank you. --Chris
(In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #6) > They may not be mutually exclusive considerations, and each PKGMESSAGE, and > LICENSE_FILE does something different. The former is display only, the > latter copies/includes the license into DATADIR. > > Have a read of the license link provided earlier, their may be a clause > regarding something like a 'prominent message during installation' or > equivalent. Yes. I read the license. I already maintain net/spread. Which has only ever used the PKGMESSAGE method. But, as mentioned, just previously, I have added LICENSE_FILE. I might also note. I have always copied license.txt to DOCSDIR/LICENSE. Surely that covers it. :) Thanks for reviewing my submission, Kubilay. --Chris
You're welcome
(In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #0) > I already maintain net/spread, so why not spread4? :) I would phrase the question differently. Why does we need both net/spread and net/spread4? Can't we remove the older one?
(In reply to John Marino from comment #10) > (In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #0) > > I already maintain net/spread, so why not spread4? :) > > > I would phrase the question differently. > Why does we need both net/spread and net/spread4? Can't we remove the older > one? Fair assertion. I quite agree. But until I reconcile those that depend on the old version. I'll need to keep both. I too had given that question some thought, and had planned to bump net/spread with an EXPIRES assertion, soon. In short. You're correct. There [ultimately] needn't the two. But AFAICT, there needs to be today. :) --Chris
this has compress-man target too, and <pre><post> _AND_ <options> includes.
(In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #8) > I might also note. I have always copied license.txt to > DOCSDIR/LICENSE. > > Surely that covers it. :) This isn't correct. You just define LICENSE_FILE to where it is in WRKSRC and it will get installed automatically. Your precopy is unnecessary and actually wrong.
Your ".if !exists" lines in post-install run 100% of the time. You are checking $STAGEDIR, which you control, and the files you are checking don't exist so they are created. However, you are overriding the @sample keyword which is supposed to do the same thing. I think in general you assume whatever was there before is correct, but this is a bad assumption. These lines were in place to mimick @sample keyword. Now that you use @sample, you should have removed them. It's these kinds of details that trip you up again and again.
Thank you, very much, John. Please let me correct these. So I can develop better habits. By doing them. I also hate adding more work, to your already overburdened workload. :) Thanks again, John. --Chris
no, once I've started working on it, it would be more work for me to stop and take your changes.
ugg, this is a gross error: All of your man pages in pkg-plist end in ".1" or ".3" instead of the correct ".1.gz" and ".3.gz". You knew that, right? It is impossible for that error to pass "make check-plist". It means it was untested.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #17) > ugg, this is a gross error: > > All of your man pages in pkg-plist end in ".1" or ".3" instead of the > correct ".1.gz" and ".3.gz". You knew that, right? > > It is impossible for that error to pass "make check-plist". It means it was > untested. Yes. I knew that. But only when they have been packed. Which, because of my having slipped the compress-man: nonsense in made it OK(ish). In short; yes. I won't do it again -- really. :) Just about done, BTW. --Chris
A commit references this bug: Author: marino Date: Wed Sep 10 00:38:04 UTC 2014 New revision: 367793 URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/367793 Log: Stage net/spread4 PR: 193450 Submitted by: Chris Hutchinson Stage fixes: marino Changes: head/net/spread4/Makefile head/net/spread4/pkg-plist
I'm done. You can compare mine version I just committed to yours and score yourself at home. I'm going to bed, goodnight.
Created attachment 147149 [details] net/spread4 [req maintainer] STAGE, LICENSE* net/spread4 corrects previous errors, as reported by JM. adds STAGE, LICENSE_FILE makes [hopefully] needed corrections. I've expanded on LICENSE, as per my _current_ understanding (fingers crossed) Please see 2014-09-09.diff attached. See also net-spread4-QA-now, also attached. Thanks, and sorry for the extra bother. --Chris
Created attachment 147150 [details] net/spread4 QA for 2014-09-09.diff (also attached) net/spread QA for 2014-09-09.diff, also attached. Thanks. --Chris
Chris, honestly the extra bother is attaching new patches *after* I commit mine to complete the PR and *after* I explicitly say, "don't submit new patches, I'm working on it". What's the point? I closed the PR. I get sent a lot of email and it eats up time just to figure out your post is obsolete before you make it.