Makefile mostly rewritten. port version bumped. master sites updated (from ftpsearch.lycos.com). maintainer updated. Andrey (ache), do you always maintain this port ? If no, I'll get the maintainship. deal ? :) added commented build depends if needed later. man section moved below configure section. always install elm.mimetypes-dist. install elm.mimetypes if nonexistent. added deletion of catman files. pkg-descr updated. pkg-plist updated. files/elm.mimetypes rewritten using IIANA registered mime types plus well known mime types from the mime-FAQ, apache and netscape. files/patch-aa (nls/Makefile) new file from patch-ab. files/patch-ab (nls/LANGS) splitted to patch-aa and patch-ab. files/patch-ac (Configure) line number changes. files/patch-ad (lib/cs_binary.c) files/patch-ae (lib/charset.c) files/patch-af (hdrs/cs_imp.h) deleted, no more needed. files/patch-ag (doc/Makefile.SH) files/patch-ah (doc/newalias.1) new files. scripts/pre-configure updated. d_disphost and d_savegrpmboxid turned on. emacs, metamail, pgp and gpg paths added. elm* files moved to $PREFIX/lib/elm. How-To-Repeat: n/a
Hi, it seems MASTER_SITE has gzipped tarball now and its content is slightly different from yours. Could you send me up-to-date patch against gzipped distfile? -- FUJISHIMA Satsuki
> Hi, it seems MASTER_SITE has gzipped tarball now and its content > is slightly different from yours. Could you send me up-to-date patch > against gzipped distfile? it was already done, but not recorded! don't understand why? see original mail in attachement. Cyrille. -- home: mailto:clefevre@citeweb.net work: mailto:Cyrille.Lefevre@edf.fr
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports->sf I'll handle this one.
At Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:30:06 -0800 (PST), Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > it was already done, but not recorded! don't understand why? > see original mail in attachement. The reason is obvious. > Subject: Re: Updated port: mail/elm+ME - 2.4ME+87 > To: clefevre@poboxes.com > CC: hurtta+elm@ozone.fmi.fi, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, > ache@freebsd.org GNATS doesn't recognize subject which doesn't include PR number at the top. I've looked at your patch but o master site no longer has gunzipped plain tar file. o but distinfo unchanged. o patch-ac doesn't apply cleanly against tar.gz distfile. Please send me working Makefile. EXTRACT_SUFX= .tar.gz EXTRACT_CMD= ${CAT} EXTRACT_BEFORE_ARGS= This difinitions read you never tested this. :-)
> At Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:30:06 -0800 (PST), > Cyrille Lefevre wrote: [snip] > GNATS doesn't recognize subject which doesn't include PR number at the > top. don't know about that. next time, I'll take care about that. > I've looked at your patch but > o master site no longer has gunzipped plain tar file. > o but distinfo unchanged. well, I forgot to put it in the updated patch. > o patch-ac doesn't apply cleanly against tar.gz distfile. don't understand. it works cleanly for me as other patches does? > Please send me working Makefile. > > EXTRACT_SUFX= .tar.gz > EXTRACT_CMD= ${CAT} > EXTRACT_BEFORE_ARGS= w/o those 3 lines, all is fine. I've just done all from scratch. but as you ask him, you'll find the Makefile in attachment. > This definitions read you never tested this. :-) you're right. I probably don't test the updated patch! I apology about that. it's the first time this happen and I won't do it again :)
At 23 Jan 2001 20:48:43 +0100, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > > o patch-ac doesn't apply cleanly against tar.gz distfile. > > don't understand. it works cleanly for me as other patches > does? like this. $ make patch ===> Extracting for elm-2.4ME+87 >> Checksum OK for elm-2.4ME+87.tar.gz. ===> Patching for elm-2.4ME+87 ===> Applying FreeBSD patches for elm-2.4ME+87 2 out of 2 hunks failed--saving rejects to Configure.rej >> Patch patch-ac failed to apply cleanly. >> Patch(es) patch-aa patch-ab applied cleanly. *** Error code 1 It looks like white space issue. Please look into attached patch-ac.
[Jan 24 05:34:33 souffle postfix/smtp[21455]: 57A0F16B76: to=<clefevre@citeweb.net>, relay=none, delay=637, status=deferred (connect to ctw2.citeweb.net[195.154.220.35]: Connection refused)] At 23 Jan 2001 20:48:43 +0100, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > > o patch-ac doesn't apply cleanly against tar.gz distfile. > > don't understand. it works cleanly for me as other patches > does? like this. $ make patch ===> Extracting for elm-2.4ME+87 >> Checksum OK for elm-2.4ME+87.tar.gz. ===> Patching for elm-2.4ME+87 ===> Applying FreeBSD patches for elm-2.4ME+87 2 out of 2 hunks failed--saving rejects to Configure.rej >> Patch patch-ac failed to apply cleanly. >> Patch(es) patch-aa patch-ab applied cleanly. *** Error code 1 It looks like white space issue. Please look into attached patch-ac. [patch snipped]
FUJISHIMA Satsuki wrote: > [Jan 24 05:34:33 souffle postfix/smtp[21455]: 57A0F16B76: to=<clefevre@citeweb.net>, relay=none, delay=637, status=deferred (connect to ctw2.citeweb.net[195.154.220.35]: Connection refused)] I saw that, my primary ISP for mail handling seems to be down right now! > At 23 Jan 2001 20:48:43 +0100, > Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > > > o patch-ac doesn't apply cleanly against tar.gz distfile. > > > > don't understand. it works cleanly for me as other patches > > does? > > like this. > [snip] > > It looks like white space issue. Please look into attached patch-ac. I identify the problem. it was due to the -b option to diff I use. maybe a section have to be added to the porters handbook on how to submit an updated port. the current submit section is only talking about new ports. do you understand what I mean? I said that, because, at the beginning, I was using shar to submit the complete and updated port. someone (obrien or will, don't remember) ask me to send him an u-diff file instead. so, I'm using the following command (I already get rid of the -b option) for some time right now w/ problem until today. alias pkgdiff='diff -BurN \ -x CVS -x work -x "*~" -x "*.orig" -x "*.rej" \ -I "\$Id.*\$" -I "\$FreeBSD.*\$"' usually, I use cvs diff, but this command doesn't handle new files :( in attachment, you'll find a definitive and working diff file w/ all changed applied. I also applied the patch to a fresh elm+ME port directory and rebuild all from scratch. maybe this rule have to be added, also, to the porters handbook? I thank you again for your effort. PS : this mail will not be recorded in gnats. if you want it recorded, ask me to send it to -gnats-sumbit. also, maybe I could ask someone at -doc about updating the porters handbook? I'm not willing to do this, since I'm not a good english writer. [patch snipped] Cyrille. -- home: mailto:clefevre@citeweb.net UNIX is user-friendly; it's just particular work: mailto:Cyrille.Lefevre@edf.fr about who it chooses to be friends with.
FUJISHIMA Satsuki <sf@FreeBSD.org> writes: > I tested your latest patch and it looks like fine, except for: > ${PREFIX}/man/cat1/wnewmail.1 has left to be unremoved. > > This kludge is caused by MLINKS. The easiest way to avoid this could > be as follows: > > remove-catman-files: > .for sect in 1 > -.for file in ${MAN${sect}} > +.for file in ${MAN${sect}} ${MLINKS} > ${RM} -f ${DESTMANDIR}/cat${sect}/${file} > .endfor > .endfor > > Quite dirty way but works. :-) > how about this? I've found a proper and universal solution :-P post-install: install-nls install-mime-types \ remove-catman-files remove-catman-links ... remove-catman-links: .for sect in 1 .for file in ${MLINKS} .if ${MAN${sect}:M${file}} == "" @${RM} -f ${DESTMANDIR}/cat${sect}/${file} .endif .endfor .endfor Cyrille. -- home: mailto:clefevre@citeweb.net UNIX is user-friendly; it's just particular work: mailto:Cyrille.Lefevre@edf.fr about who it chooses to be friends with.
At 27 Jan 2001 23:34:44 +0100, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > I've found a proper and universal solution :-P [snipped] Good, I'll buy you. :) (hopefully)The final question. Currently the package name 'elm-2.4ME+87' violates rule of FreeBSD ports. I think we should change it to: o elm2.4+ME-87 (PORTNAME=elm2.4+ME, PORTVERSION=87) o elm+ME-2.4.87 (PORTNAME=elm+ME, PORTVERSION=2.4.87) Which do you like? -- FUJISHIMA Satsuki
FUJISHIMA Satsuki wrote: > At 27 Jan 2001 23:34:44 +0100, > Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > > (hopefully)The final question. Currently the package name > 'elm-2.4ME+87' violates rule of FreeBSD ports. I think we should > change it to: > > o elm2.4+ME-87 (PORTNAME=elm2.4+ME, PORTVERSION=87) > o elm+ME-2.4.87 (PORTNAME=elm+ME, PORTVERSION=2.4.87) > > Which do you like? I prefer the second one. so, I've made the required changes in the attached patch (which is relative to my last working patch I sent to you) plus a fix about the MIME-Version handling which doesn't recognize this header if it contains comments between parentheses! also, I've enhanced a lot elm.mimetypes (w/ Gnome and KDE mime-types). just in case, I'll send to you full patch relative to elm-2.4ME+82 as a separate email. Cyrille. -- home: mailto:clefevre@citeweb.net UNIX is user-friendly; it's just particular work: mailto:Cyrille.Lefevre@edf.fr about who it chooses to be friends with.
OK, it worked except for a few points: 1) reflect CFLAGS. - CONFIGURE_ENV= CFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" PREFIX="${PREFIX}" + SCRIPTS_ENV= CFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" PREFIX="${PREFIX}" 2) remove catpages properly. - @${RM} -f ${MAN${sect}PREFIX}/cat${sect}/${page} + @${RM} -f ${MAN${sect}PREFIX}/man/cat${sect}/${page} 3) add PORTEPOCH=1 to teach pkg_version(1) this port is successor of elm-2.4ME+82. This is necessary as previous port violates naming rule. You need not to send me patch if you don't make drastic change to this port. -- FUJISHIMA Satsuki
FUJISHIMA Satsuki <sf@FreeBSD.org> writes: > OK, it worked except for a few points: > > 1) reflect CFLAGS. > - CONFIGURE_ENV= CFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" PREFIX="${PREFIX}" > + SCRIPTS_ENV= CFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" PREFIX="${PREFIX}" you're right. one time (only), I've seen there is something in the generated config.sh (cflags=''), but forget to continue in that way. > 2) remove catpages properly. > - @${RM} -f ${MAN${sect}PREFIX}/cat${sect}/${page} > + @${RM} -f ${MAN${sect}PREFIX}/man/cat${sect}/${page} sorry, typo. > 3) add PORTEPOCH=1 to teach pkg_version(1) this port is successor of > elm-2.4ME+82. This is necessary as previous port violates naming > rule. I was thinking about this, but I didn't understand how this works! that is, how is made the relationship between the old name and the new name? > You need not to send me patch if you don't make drastic change to this > port. I guess we have finished w/ this port, aren't we ? :)) see you. Cyrille. -- home: mailto:clefevre@citeweb.net UNIX is user-friendly; it's just particular work: mailto:Cyrille.Lefevre@edf.fr about who it chooses to be friends with.
At 31 Jan 2001 05:38:14 +0100, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > I was thinking about this, but I didn't understand how this works! > that is, how is made the relationship between the old name and the new name? pkg_create(1) inserts '@comment ORIGIN:mail/elm+ME' to +CONTENTS in package. pkg_version(1) looks for this variable and does its job. Without PORTEPOCH, pkg_version decides elm+ME-2.4.87 is older than elm-2.4ME+82. We don't have reason not to add this variable, do we? > I guess we have finished w/ this port, aren't we ? :)) OK, I'll do my job. Thanks for brushing up this port! -- FUJISHIMA Satsuki
State Changed From-To: open->closed Committed, thanks!
FUJISHIMA Satsuki <sf@FreeBSD.org> writes: > At 31 Jan 2001 05:38:14 +0100, > Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > > I was thinking about this, but I didn't understand how this works! > > that is, how is made the relationship between the old name and the new name? > > pkg_create(1) inserts '@comment ORIGIN:mail/elm+ME' to +CONTENTS in > package. pkg_version(1) looks for this variable and does its job. thanks for the explanation. > > I guess we have finished w/ this port, aren't we ? :)) > > OK, I'll do my job. Thanks for brushing up this port! you're welcome. thanks to you too. see you. Cyrille. -- home: mailto:clefevre@citeweb.net UNIX is user-friendly; it's just particular work: mailto:Cyrille.Lefevre@edf.fr about who it chooses to be friends with.