Created attachment 230167 [details] patch -d /usr/ports/www/links < FILENAME Patch to update to latest version of links
(In reply to Jamie Landeg-Jones from comment #0) Thanks for the heads-up and the diff, Jamie. :-) I'll work up a proper git diff with your submitted info and submit it for the update. Thanks again! -- Chris
(In reply to Chris Hutchinson from comment #1) > I'll work up a proper git diff with your submitted info and submit it for the > update. What's improper about the original patch? The port builds and works fine with it (I've also switched to smaller .tar.bz2 distfile with USES:=tar:bz2).
(In reply to Alexey Dokuchaev from comment #2) Functionally. Your patch is perfect. :-) However, all the commits are to a git tree. As such, a git diff is used to make the commit. Thanks again. -- Chris
Created attachment 230193 [details] update www/links to 2.25 git diff to update www/links to 2.25 @Alexey Sorry I replied to the comment so fast I didn't realize it was you.
A commit in branch main references this bug: URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/ports/commit/?id=9f279ac50748cab67a9050ace31e8cff5549a23f commit 9f279ac50748cab67a9050ace31e8cff5549a23f Author: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> AuthorDate: 2021-12-17 08:11:10 +0000 Commit: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> CommitDate: 2021-12-17 08:11:10 +0000 www/links: the port had been updated to version 2.25 and cleaned up Particularly, remove NLS option (gettext is long unused), add missing `pkgconfig' to the USES list, do not literally repeat COMMENT text in DESKTOP_ENTRIES, and switch to .tar.bz2 distfile which is smaller. PR: 260466 www/links/Makefile | 16 +++++----------- www/links/distinfo | 6 +++--- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
Committed with additional improvements, thanks!
(In reply to Alexey Dokuchaev from comment #2) > What's improper about the original patch? The port builds and works fine with it Thanks, Alexey. I've already had a patch I submitted to a port I maintain initially rejected because I didn't use git diff. (bug #260425) I went on a mini rant because I don't use git (except for syncing from the remote src tree), the patch was in the same format I've used for over 15 years, and more importantly, the Porter Handbook still maintains it's a valid format. Some clarification on the issue would be useful. Git is useful for source maintenance (I prefer others, but it's only fair the choice is down to the source maintainers themselves, so this isn't a complaint!), but I think it's overkill to force it for port maintenance. Chris, thanks for picking this up so quickly, and making the other improvements too. This is definitely not a complaint directed at you - obviously you can alter/submit the patch any way you like, as long as the committers are happy!
(In reply to Jamie Landeg-Jones from comment #7) > Some clarification on the issue would be useful. I've left some comments in that bug #260425. TL;DR: you did nothing wrong, it was our fault that we failed to process your original patch. > I think [git is an] overkill to force it for port maintenance. Very much so, but it was mostly a political (some call it administrative) rather than technical decision. Technically and feature-wise Subversion is far superior, but lacks modern tooling, infrastructure, integration with popular code hosting solutions, pull request mechanism, etc. which are all built around git these days. > Chris, thanks for picking this up so quickly, and making the other > improvements too. Actually, those other improvements came from me, not Chris. Just sayin'. :)
@Jamie No worries. I understand the friction. Half of my motor-skills still point to svn(1), and I'm still frustrated over the change. I only chose to create a git diff because so many of the committers tend to insist on them, or simply pass over the pr's that don't contain them. So just figured it was the RTTD. :-) @Alexey Thanks for your time and the extra work on this. :-) -- Chris
(In reply to Alexey Dokuchaev from comment #8) Thanks for your supportive comments. Glad I'm not the only one who prefers svn.. I used to use svnweb a lot to monitor changes... cgit.... not at all! Anyway, thanks for clarifying..I'm glad we're not being forced to use git for ports... I went on a bit of an over the top rant in my response on the other PR, which was unprofessional, but I still believe in the gist of it. Finally, thanks for doing the extra bits - apologies for attributing them to Chris, especially after all your other support! (In reply to Chris Hutchinson from comment #9) Ahhh. You maintain more ports than me (I may be down to only 1 or 2 at the moment), so I've not experienced it like you have. And again, I have no issue in what a maintainer decides to do with a patch - it was the committer refusing my patch that bugged me! Still, I'm glad you mentioned it. If you hadn't, Alexey wouldn't have responded, and I'd still be in the dark! So, beers for both of you!