devel/diffconvert A converter between context diff and unidiff formats new-port staged master-sites maintainer-update files: bin/cd2ud bin/cdiffreverse bin/ud2cd bin/udiffreverse Fix: commit attached patch. Patch attached with submission follows:
Hi, if you are still interested in having this port in FreeBSD, it may (or may not) need to be reworked to support stage, and it may need updating to other newer conventions such as "USES" which is expanding all time. For staging, see http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports-announce/2014-May/000080.html Additionally, you need to provide some sort of quality assurance. In order of preference, we are looking for: 1) "poudriere testport" or "poudriere bulk -t" logs 2) Redports or tinderbox logs 3) at least this: https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/porting-testing.html Please provide an updated shar file and attach a test log. Alternatively, please indicate if you are no longer interested in having this software in the Ports Collection and that we can close the PR. Thanks!
removing "staged" from title, it's causing false positives on search
Thank you for your attention to this, John. It was already completely Staged. So you needn't have removed that from the title. I'm running on RELENG_8, and RELENG_9. It makes, installs, deinstalls as expected on both of those releases. But given I have no access to -10, or -11. I ran build(s) on RedPorts. Again, it passed all tests on RELENG_8, and RELENG_9. But apparently RELENG_10, and RELENG_11 are broken, or -pedantic (no iostream.h). RedPorts statistics: https://redports.org/~portmaster/20140818221724-27294-235303/diffconvert-1.4.log https://redports.org/~portmaster/20140818221710-46019-235302/diffconvert-1.4.log https://redports.org/~portmaster/20140818220900-11671-235301/diffconvert-1.4.log https://redports.org/~portmaster/20140818220900-11671-235300/diffconvert-1.4.log https://redports.org/~portmaster/20140818220900-11671-235299/diffconvert-1.4.log I guess I could create a conditional: if BSD_VERSION >= 10 "Your version of FreeBSD is broken \ please consider using a stable version \ such as RELENG_8, or RELENG_9" :) Seriously. Looks like I'll have to try and figure out where iostream.h went on the newer versions of FreeBSD. I've added (replaced) the shar(1) file originally attached to this pr(1) Thanks again, John. --Chris
Created attachment 146013 [details] Minor updates Minor update(s) Obsoletes previous (142090) Works on: RELENG_8 RELENG_9 Broken on: RELENG_10 RELENG_11
(In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #4) > Created attachment 146013 [details] > Minor updates > > Minor update(s) > Obsoletes previous (142090) > Works on: > RELENG_8 > RELENG_9 > Broken on: > RELENG_10 > RELENG_11 (In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #3) > Thank you for your attention to this, John. > It was already completely Staged. So you needn't have removed that > from the title. > I'm running on RELENG_8, and RELENG_9. It makes, installs, deinstalls > as expected on both of those releases. > But given I have no access to -10, or -11. I ran build(s) on > RedPorts. Again, it passed all tests on RELENG_8, and RELENG_9. But > apparently RELENG_10, and RELENG_11 are broken, or -pedantic (no > iostream.h). > > RedPorts statistics: > https://redports.org/~portmaster/20140818221724-27294-235303/diffconvert-1.4. > log > https://redports.org/~portmaster/20140818221710-46019-235302/diffconvert-1.4. > log > https://redports.org/~portmaster/20140818220900-11671-235301/diffconvert-1.4. > log > https://redports.org/~portmaster/20140818220900-11671-235300/diffconvert-1.4. > log > https://redports.org/~portmaster/20140818220900-11671-235299/diffconvert-1.4. > log > > I guess I could create a conditional: > if BSD_VERSION >= 10 "Your version of FreeBSD is broken \ > please consider using a stable version \ > such as RELENG_8, or RELENG_9" > > :) > Seriously. Looks like I'll have to try and figure out where > iostream.h went on the newer versions of FreeBSD. > > I've added (replaced) the shar(1) file originally attached to this pr(1) > > Thanks again, John. > > --Chris OK looks like I'm going to have to refactor all of the .cc files, if I want this to build on anything more recent than RELENG_9. I'll post something within the next couple of days. --Chris
(In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #3) > Thank you for your attention to this, John. > It was already completely Staged. So you needn't have removed that > from the title. Yes I did. Since staging is required for all new ports, saying it's staged is like saying this new car comes with a steering wheel, it's assumed. We use the word "staged" in the title to pick out PRs that add staging to unstaged ports because they are the highest priority. This port was showing up in that search, a false positive. It's a key word.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #6) > (In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #3) > > Thank you for your attention to this, John. > > It was already completely Staged. So you needn't have removed that > > from the title. > > Yes I did. > Since staging is required for all new ports, saying it's staged is like > saying this new car comes with a steering wheel, it's assumed. > > We use the word "staged" in the title to pick out PRs that add staging to > unstaged ports because they are the highest priority. This port was showing > up in that search, a false positive. It's a key word. Ahh. OK, I see. No offense was intended. --Chris
Created attachment 146052 [details] Works as intended -- and staged too! :) OK. I've spent as much time on this as I can justify. Making it compatible with clang, w/o having a recent version of clang is like poking around in the dark, with a stick. I'm going to devote the time needed to put 11 on a box, rather than wasting it on this. I need something with clang, so as to develop with clang anyway. So as it is now (as you'll see looking at the source), it has an OSVERSION conditional, that bails, if found to be greater than 9. That should do it, quite nicely. Don't you think. :) OH. version 1.5 will overcome this current limitation. Thanks, as always, John, for all your time, and dedication -- and tolerance of me. :) :) --Chris
I don't think having a new port that doesn't work on FreeBSD 10 or later is going to fly. It's one thing if it was an older existing port that stopped building (and we had plenty of those) but I consider those "grandfathered-in". Even that status is basically temporary. My interpretation that for general usage new ports, building with base clang is a requirement.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #9) > I don't think having a new port that doesn't work on FreeBSD 10 or later is > going to fly. It's one thing if it was an older existing port that stopped > building (and we had plenty of those) but I consider those > "grandfathered-in". > > Even that status is basically temporary. > > My interpretation that for general usage new ports, building with base clang > is a requirement. Sure. I guess that probably makes sense. I'm putting together an 11 box, as I write this. I need [recent] clang, if I'm going to move forward with any of these ports. I've also been anxious to put redports on a dev box, as well. To help expedite development. Thanks, John, for all your hard work. --Chris
(In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #10) > I've also been anxious to put redports on a dev box, as well. To help > expedite development. I think you mean "poudriere". Redports is a service, you can't install it. It's also inferior to redports for checking port issues. What it is good for is go/no go on all x86 platforms so you don't need to have 8 poudriere jails.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #11) > (In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #10) > > I've also been anxious to put redports on a dev box, as well. To help > > expedite development. > > I think you mean "poudriere". > Redports is a service, you can't install it. > It's also inferior to redports for checking port issues. > What it is good for is go/no go on all x86 platforms so you don't need to > have 8 poudriere jails. No. I meant redports. I have the source. I'm not sure I follow your "inferior" assertion. You think redports is inferior? Thanks for your continued input, John. --Chris
(In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #12) > No. I meant redports. I have the source. > I'm not sure I follow your "inferior" assertion. You think > redports is inferior? Yes, it is based on tinderbox which is inferior to poudriere. Everyone wants redports to be upgraded to be based on poudriere. Use poudriere; you will not regret it. It's faster too.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #13) > (In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #12) > > No. I meant redports. I have the source. > > I'm not sure I follow your "inferior" assertion. You think > > redports is inferior? > > Yes, it is based on tinderbox which is inferior to poudriere. Everyone > wants redports to be upgraded to be based on poudriere. > > > Use poudriere; you will not regret it. It's faster too. Ahh. I see. Thanks for the clarification, John. poudriere it is. I trust your advise. Anything to keep me out from under your magnifying glass. :) Thanks! --Chris
OK. I've just re-examined this one. I see what's needed to get it to operate on "modern" compilers. In fact, the whole thing should be completely overhauled. A quick-fix, would be the addition of a couple #ifdef's. But it'd be a pointless kludge. As the value of this port, doesn't warrant the bother. Long story short; nuke this/close it/{...}. :) Thanks! --Chris