Bug 96639
| Summary: | [patch] suggestion to committer's guide that should have a description about remove ports | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Documentation | Reporter: | Cheng-Lung Sung <clsung> | ||||
| Component: | Books & Articles | Assignee: | Giorgos Keramidas <keramida> | ||||
| Status: | Closed FIXED | ||||||
| Severity: | Affects Only Me | CC: | clsung | ||||
| Priority: | Normal | ||||||
| Version: | Latest | ||||||
| Hardware: | Any | ||||||
| OS: | Any | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Cheng-Lung Sung
2006-05-02 05:00:37 UTC
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 11:58:44AM +0800, Cheng-Lung Sung wrote: > > >Description: > Committer's guide only describe few about remove ports (in repo sections). > >How-To-Repeat: > >Fix: > > --- en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/article.sgml.orig Thu Apr 20 09:49:55 2006 > +++ en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/article.sgml Tue May 2 11:52:02 2006 > @@ -2423,6 +2423,40 @@ > </qandadiv> > > <qandadiv> > + <title>Removing an Existing Port</title> > + > + <qandaentry> > + <question> > + <para>How do I remove an existing port?</para> > + </question> > + > + <answer> > + <para>First, please read the section about repository > + copies. Make sure there is no dependency on the port > + in the ports colloection, then perform the following:</para> collection > + > + <procedure> > + <step> > + <para>Remove the port via <command>cvs remove</command>.</para> > + </step> > + <step> > + <para>Remove <makevar>SUBDIR</makevar> listing of the port > + in the parent directory <filename>Makefile</filename>.</para> > + </step> > + <step> > + <para>Remove the module entry in > + <filename>CVSROOT/modules</filename>.</para> > + </step> > + <step> > + <para>Add an entry to > + <filename>ports/MOVED</filename>.</para> > + </step> > + </procedure> I think it's good to mention which files need to be changed here as a reference, but a much easier way to do this is to use the rmport script vd wrote and added to /usr/ports/Tools/script recently. Cheers, -erwin -- Erwin Lansing http://droso.org Security is like an onion. (o_ _o) It's made up of several layers \\\_\ /_/// erwin@FreeBSD.org And it makes you cry. <____) (____> erwin@aauug.dk "Make sure there is no dependency on the port in the ports colloection"
This is too superficial, I would suggest something like:
Make sure there is no dependency on the port in the ports collection:
* The only line in a recent INDEX file, containing port's PKGNAME should
be port's own line.
* No other ports should contain any references to port's directory or
PKGNAME in their Makefiles
(feel free to correct the englicsh, I hope you get the meaning)
--
Vasil Dimov
gro.DSBeerF@dv
Testing can show the presence of bugs, but not their absence.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra
Hi,
Thank to your suggestions.
I made some modification, and the patch now is placed at
http://people.freebsd.org/~clsung/patch-committers-guide_v2
If you are free can you help me review that?
Thanks,
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 12:47:02PM +0300, Vasil Dimov wrote:
> "Make sure there is no dependency on the port in the ports colloection"
> This is too superficial, I would suggest something like:
>
> Make sure there is no dependency on the port in the ports collection:
> * The only line in a recent INDEX file, containing port's PKGNAME should
> be port's own line.
> * No other ports should contain any references to port's directory or
> PKGNAME in their Makefiles
>
> (feel free to correct the englicsh, I hope you get the meaning)
--
Cheng-Lung Sung - clsung@
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 03:29:17PM +0800, Cheng-Lung Sung wrote:
> Hi,
> Thank to your suggestions.
>
> I made some modification, and the patch now is placed at
>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~clsung/patch-committers-guide_v2
>
> If you are free can you help me review that?
>
Looks fine, here is a slightly modified version:
--- patch-committers-guide_v2 begins here ---
--- article.sgml.orig Thu Apr 20 09:49:55 2006
+++ article.sgml Thu May 4 15:22:53 2006
@@ -2423,6 +2423,74 @@
</qandadiv>
<qandadiv>
+ <title>Removing an Existing Port</title>
+
+ <qandaentry>
+ <question>
+ <para>How do I remove an existing port?</para>
+ </question>
+
+ <answer>
+ <para>First, please read the section about repository
+ copies. Before you remove the port, you have to verify
+ there are no other ports depending on it.</para>
+ <itemizedlist>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>Make sure there is no dependency on the port
+ in the ports collection:</para>
+ <itemizedlist>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>The port's PKGNAME should appear in exactly one
+ line in a recent INDEX file.</para>
+ </listitem>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>No other ports should contain any reference to
+ the port's directory or PKGNAME in their
+ Makefiles</para>
+ </listitem>
+ </itemizedlist>
+ </listitem>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>Then, remove the port:</para>
+
+ <procedure>
+ <step>
+ <para>Remove the port's files via <command>cvs remove</command>.</para>
+ </step>
+
+ <step>
+ <para>Remove <makevar>SUBDIR</makevar> listing of the port
+ in the parent directory <filename>Makefile</filename>.</para>
+ </step>
+
+ <step>
+ <para>Remove the module entry in
+ <filename>CVSROOT/modules</filename>.</para>
+ </step>
+
+ <step>
+ <para>Add an entry to
+ <filename>ports/MOVED</filename>.</para>
+ </step>
+
+ <step>
+ <para>Remove the port from
+ <filename>ports/LEGAL</filename> if it is there.</para>
+ </step>
+ </procedure>
+ </listitem>
+ </itemizedlist>
+ <para>However, there is a
+ <command>ports/Tools/scripts/rmport</command> script
+ that automates all the necessary steps for removing a port.
+ It was written by &a.vd;, who is also the current maintainer
+ so please send questions/patches about
+ <command>rmport</command> to him.</para>
+ </answer>
+ </qandaentry>
+ </qandadiv>
+
+ <qandadiv>
<title>Repository Copies</title>
<qandaentry>
@@ -2495,9 +2563,9 @@
<step>
<para>Add the new subdirectory to the
<makevar>SUBDIR</makevar> listing in the parent
- directory Makefile. You can run <command>make
- checksubdirs</command> in the parent directory to check
- this.</para>
+ directory <filename>Makefile</filename>. You can run
+ <command>make checksubdirs</command> in the parent
+ directory to check this.</para>
</step>
<step>
--- patch-committers-guide_v2 ends here ---
--
Vasil Dimov
gro.DSBeerF@dv
Testing can show the presence of bugs, but not their absence.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:09:33AM +0300, Vasil Dimov wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 03:29:17PM +0800, Cheng-Lung Sung wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Thank to your suggestions.
> >
> > I made some modification, and the patch now is placed at
> >
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~clsung/patch-committers-guide_v2
> >
> > If you are free can you help me review that?
> >
> Looks fine, here is a slightly modified version:
>
> --- patch-committers-guide_v2 begins here ---
> [...]
> --- patch-committers-guide_v2 ends here ---
Thanks!!!
--
Cheng-Lung Sung - clsung@
On 2006-05-04 08:10, Vasil Dimov <vd@freebsd.org> wrote: > Looks fine, here is a slightly modified version: > > + <title>Removing an Existing Port</title> > + > + <qandaentry> [...] > + <para>However, there is a > + <command>ports/Tools/scripts/rmport</command> script > + that automates all the necessary steps for removing a port. > + It was written by &a.vd;, who is also the current maintainer > + so please send questions/patches about > + <command>rmport</command> to him.</para> > + </answer> Since `rmport' is an alternative way of removing a port, how about the following minor rewording of the above paragraph? <para>Alternatively, you can use the <command>rmport</command> script, from <filename role="directory">ports/Tools/scripts</filename>. This script has been written by &a.vd;, who is also its current maintainer, so please send questions, patches or suggestions about <command>rmport</command> to him.</para> Also, is anyone going to commit the changes of this PR? They look like a useful addition to the docs. Let's not leave them to rot in Gnats for too long :-) - Giorgos On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:51:41PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2006-05-04 08:10, Vasil Dimov <vd@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Looks fine, here is a slightly modified version: > > > > + <title>Removing an Existing Port</title> > > + > > + <qandaentry> > [...] > > + <para>However, there is a > > + <command>ports/Tools/scripts/rmport</command> script > > + that automates all the necessary steps for removing a port. > > + It was written by &a.vd;, who is also the current maintainer > > + so please send questions/patches about > > + <command>rmport</command> to him.</para> > > + </answer> > > Since `rmport' is an alternative way of removing a port, how about the > following minor rewording of the above paragraph? > > <para>Alternatively, you can use the <command>rmport</command> script, > from <filename role="directory">ports/Tools/scripts</filename>. > This script has been written by &a.vd;, who is also its current > maintainer, so please send questions, patches or suggestions about > <command>rmport</command> to him.</para> Sounds good. > > Also, is anyone going to commit the changes of this PR? They look like > a useful addition to the docs. Let's not leave them to rot in Gnats for > too long :-) Well, I guess one needs a doc commit bit to do so? -- Vasil Dimov gro.DSBeerF@dv Testing can show the presence of bugs, but not their absence. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra On 2006-05-08 16:57, Vasil Dimov <vd@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:51:41PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >> On 2006-05-04 08:10, Vasil Dimov <vd@freebsd.org> wrote: >> > Looks fine, here is a slightly modified version: >> > >> > + <title>Removing an Existing Port</title> >> > + >> > + <qandaentry> >> [...] >> > + <para>However, there is a >> > + <command>ports/Tools/scripts/rmport</command> script >> > + that automates all the necessary steps for removing a port. >> > + It was written by &a.vd;, who is also the current maintainer >> > + so please send questions/patches about >> > + <command>rmport</command> to him.</para> >> > + </answer> >> >> Since `rmport' is an alternative way of removing a port, how about the >> following minor rewording of the above paragraph? >> >> <para>Alternatively, you can use the <command>rmport</command> script, >> from <filename role="directory">ports/Tools/scripts</filename>. >> This script has been written by &a.vd;, who is also its current >> maintainer, so please send questions, patches or suggestions about >> <command>rmport</command> to him.</para> > Sounds good. > >> >> Also, is anyone going to commit the changes of this PR? They look like >> a useful addition to the docs. Let's not leave them to rot in Gnats for >> too long :-) > > Well, I guess one needs a doc commit bit to do so? Or a review from a doc-committer. You have mine already. Or, I can do the doc-build test & commit work, if you are satisfied with the current version of the patch :) On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 05:12:29PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2006-05-08 16:57, Vasil Dimov <vd@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> >On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:51:41PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> >> On 2006-05-04 08:10, Vasil Dimov <vd@freebsd.org> wrote:
> >> > Looks fine, here is a slightly modified version:
> >> >
> >> > + <title>Removing an Existing Port</title>
> >> > +
> >> > + <qandaentry>
> >> [...]
> >> > + <para>However, there is a
> >> > + <command>ports/Tools/scripts/rmport</command> script
> >> > + that automates all the necessary steps for removing a port.
> >> > + It was written by &a.vd;, who is also the current maintainer
> >> > + so please send questions/patches about
> >> > + <command>rmport</command> to him.</para>
> >> > + </answer>
> >>
> >> Since `rmport' is an alternative way of removing a port, how about the
> >> following minor rewording of the above paragraph?
> >>
> >> <para>Alternatively, you can use the <command>rmport</command> script,
> >> from <filename role="directory">ports/Tools/scripts</filename>.
> >> This script has been written by &a.vd;, who is also its current
> >> maintainer, so please send questions, patches or suggestions about
> >> <command>rmport</command> to him.</para>
> > Sounds good.
> >
> >>
> >> Also, is anyone going to commit the changes of this PR? They look like
> >> a useful addition to the docs. Let's not leave them to rot in Gnats for
> >> too long :-)
> >
> > Well, I guess one needs a doc commit bit to do so?
>
> Or a review from a doc-committer. You have mine already. Or, I can
> do the doc-build test & commit work, if you are satisfied with the
> current version of the patch :)
>
Ok, I am satisfied with the current version of the patch.
If you do not commit it within the next 24 hours (or so) I will do it
myself using Approved by: you
Have a nice day!
--
Vasil Dimov
gro.DSBeerF@dv
Testing can show the presence of bugs, but not their absence.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-doc->keramida Committed, thanks all :) State Changed From-To: open->closed Close PR too, now that this has been committed. Reminded by: vd |