new port devel/ecgi stage-complete maintainer-update ecgi (easy CGI Libary) is an ANSI C library for the creation of CGI-based Web applications. Fix: commit attached. Patch attached with submission follows:
Overlooked a missing ${STAGEDIR} see attached match to add the missing ${STAGEDIR}
Gah! That's it. It's late, and I'm through for the nite. Sorry. PLEASE disregard the last update to the Makefile I attached. I didn't move ${STAGEDIR} I /added/ one. :P Please use the one attached (Makefile.patch) to this message, instead. Once again, sooo sorry.
Comment on attachment 142050 [details] Makefile.update patch has error, ignore
This is already obsolete. Just looking at shar, I see these problems: 1) indefinite article in COMMENT 2) USE_GMAKE instead of USES+= gmake 3) possible redundant redefinition of WRKSRC 4) NOPORTDOCS used instead of PORT_OPTIONS - DOCS plus the bug that was fixed with patch Do you want to take this back, fix those issues (mostly simple) and resubmit a clean shar?
(In reply to John Marino from comment #4) > This is already obsolete. > Just looking at shar, I see these problems: > > 1) indefinite article in COMMENT > 2) USE_GMAKE instead of USES+= gmake > 3) possible redundant redefinition of WRKSRC > 4) NOPORTDOCS used instead of PORT_OPTIONS - DOCS > plus the bug that was fixed with patch > > Do you want to take this back, fix those issues (mostly simple) and resubmit > a clean shar? Yes. Will do. I'll fix the issues, and post them here. Thank you! --Chris
Created attachment 143758 [details] UPDATE superceeds previous attachments OK. Looks like this gets it (see attached: ecgi.shar). Yes. NOPORTDOCS still exists. But at the moment it's still supported, and I will reconcile this soon. Thanks, and hope it meets _current_ expectations. :) --Chris
what's the issue with removing NOPORTDOCS? I'm not going to revive a port with deprecated knobs like NOPORTDOCS, which leads to the consequence of me converting it before committing. It's not that hard so I probably will. I just don't understand why you left it for me. e.g USE_BZIP2=yes is still supported, but I won't put that on new ports either. Somebody would point that out as a mistake.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #7) > what's the issue with removing NOPORTDOCS? > > I'm not going to revive a port with deprecated knobs like NOPORTDOCS, which > leads to the consequence of me converting it before committing. It's not > that hard so I probably will. I just don't understand why you left it for > me. > > e.g USE_BZIP2=yes is still supported, but I won't put that on new ports > either. Somebody would point that out as a mistake. Sorry, John. I hadn't decided how I how wanted to best implement it. But, given your WELL NOTED arguments. I decided to go this route. Unless you have any objection. I'll pack up a new shar(1), obsoleting the previous, and we'll call it "a wrap". :) PS I've since added LICENSE, and replaced the second line in the Makefile with $FreeBSD$ Proposed CORRECTIONS follow: OPTIONS_DEFINE= DOCS OPTIONS_DEFAULT=DOCS .include <bsd.port.options.mk> ... .if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MDOCS} @${MKDIR} ${STAGEDIR}${DOCSDIR} ${INSTALL_DATA} ${WRKSRC}/doc/ecgitut.txt ${STAGEDIR}${DOCSDIR} .else OPTIONS_EXCLUDE+= DOCS .endif Thanks, and apologies for being such a pain in the a$$
Created attachment 143765 [details] Includes recommends (demands) proposed. ;) OK. COMPLETELY ignore my previously "proposed" corrections. They were off the top of my "pointy" head. Included in the attached shar(1) (ecgi-new.shar) is everything that one would expect -- portlint(1) agrees. But complains about having only one MASTER_SITES, and [wrongly] complains about COMMENT. Thanks again, John. Hope this meets your standards. :) --Chris
(In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #9) > Created attachment 143765 [details] > Includes recommends (demands) proposed. ;) > > OK. COMPLETELY ignore my previously "proposed" corrections. > They were off the top of my "pointy" head. > > Included in the attached shar(1) (ecgi-new.shar) is everything > that one would expect -- portlint(1) agrees. But complains > about having only one MASTER_SITES, and [wrongly] complains > about COMMENT. > > Thanks again, John. > > Hope this meets your standards. :) > > --Chris PS If it were up to me, you would be awarded with the "Commit Bit of the Year" just for having to deal with all the extra B$ if caused you. :) --Chris
Okay, thanks. The complaint about COMMENT is not wrong though. I've already mentioned this particular rule a few times now (You can't start a comment with an indefinite article). so portlint is right to warn about that and I'll have to change that.
I am curious, do you have tabs set to 4 spaces or something? You should using hard tabs (equivalent to 8 spaces). The Makefile lines aren't aligned. I'd guess inconsistent tab setting is the reason.
I appreciate the attempt to convert to DOCS (and then hardcoding it not to). Your error was not adding ".include <bsd.port.options.mk>" after the OPTIONS definition. You don't need to set DOCS as default because it aways is (it's set behind the scenes) so that line is redundant. I'm fixing all this, but you should study the result later.
P.S. Likewise DOCS_DESC is already defined. This is the case for many common option names.
running commentary: I see USES+= gmake followed by USES= tar.xz A) you could have combined this on one line B) because the second line doesn't have "+=" you redefined USES, so you lost USES=gmake C) the first instance of USES needs "=", not "+=" unless it's a master port (because a slave could have already defined USES) so that's a straight up error. I'm fixing...
running commentary: Advanced stuff, but I see zero need for use LD_CONFIG=yes. The libraries are in a standard location. The original maintainer probably didn't know what this did.
running commentary: You didn't review my previous comment "3) possible redundant redefinition of WRKSRC" I confirmed, this is completely redundant. It defines WRKSRC to the default definition, it needs to be removed.
running commentary: 1 out of 2 hunks failed--saving rejects to html2h/html2h.c.rej => Patch patch-html2h_html2h.c failed to apply cleanly. Ouch! investigating.
running commentary: I had to regenerate two patches (src/ecgitk too), seems to have had whitespace issues. I think you really, really need to install poudriere and test all your future submissions using "poudriere testport". It will help everyone.
A commit references this bug: Author: marino Date: Sat Jun 14 10:11:03 UTC 2014 New revision: 357760 URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/357760 Log: Resurrect devel/ecgi with stage support The port had been essentially unmaintained since 2006 and was removed three years ago. It needs some TLC to bring it up to modern standards. Pass maintainership to submitter. PR: 189010 Submitted by: Chris Hutchinson Add'l fixes by: marino Changes: head/MOVED head/devel/Makefile head/devel/ecgi/ head/devel/ecgi/Makefile head/devel/ecgi/distinfo head/devel/ecgi/files/patch-Makefile head/devel/ecgi/files/patch-html2h::Makefile head/devel/ecgi/files/patch-html2h::html2h.c head/devel/ecgi/files/patch-html2h_Makefile head/devel/ecgi/files/patch-html2h_html2h.c head/devel/ecgi/files/patch-src::ecgitk.c head/devel/ecgi/files/patch-src_ecgitk.c head/devel/ecgi/pkg-descr
Okay, this one ended up costing me a ton of time as well, so please review all the additional changes I made. I really urge you to install poudriere and start using this valuable tool to test future submissions. Once you see what it can do, you'll be really happy with it.