Bug 193549 - graphics/dcraw-m UNbreak this port MASTER_SITES
Summary: graphics/dcraw-m UNbreak this port MASTER_SITES
Status: Closed Overcome By Events
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: --- Affects Many People
Assignee: freebsd-ports-bugs (Nobody)
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2014-09-11 05:09 UTC by Chris Hutchinson
Modified: 2014-11-03 14:29 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments
graphics/dcraw-m UN break the port (1.27 KB, patch)
2014-09-11 05:09 UTC, Chris Hutchinson
no flags Details | Diff
make fetchable, repack, bump PORTREVISION (1.31 KB, patch)
2014-11-02 19:45 UTC, Chris Hutchinson
no flags Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Chris Hutchinson 2014-09-11 05:09:52 UTC
Created attachment 147208 [details]
graphics/dcraw-m UN break the port

graphics/dcraw-m

I use this port, and had already had the source.
I'm happy to host it. So here's a diff that should restore it.

replaces MASTER_SITES
changes distinfo

FWIW Feel free to put me as MAINTAINER, should the current one
be un(willing|able)

Thank you for all your time, and consideration.

--Chris
Comment 1 Chris Hutchinson 2014-09-11 05:11:42 UTC
(In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #0)
> Created attachment 147208 [details]
> graphics/dcraw-m UN break the port
> 
> graphics/dcraw-m
> 
> I use this port, and had already had the source.
> I'm happy to host it. So here's a diff that should restore it.
> 
> replaces MASTER_SITES
> changes distinfo
> 
> FWIW Feel free to put me as MAINTAINER, should the current one
> be un(willing|able)
> 
> Thank you for all your time, and consideration.
> 
> --Chris

P.S. Should probably also mention;
did NOT bump PORTREVISION
Comment 2 Antoine Brodin freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2014-10-25 16:30:16 UTC
It seems the distfile was rerolled,  why?  this is bad practice.
Comment 3 Chris Hutchinson 2014-10-27 15:57:56 UTC
(In reply to Antoine Brodin from comment #2)
> It seems the distfile was rerolled,  why?  this is bad practice.

Sure. But since I'm the new source for the port, and given it's otherwise being broken. This effectively makes it a new port. Does re-rolling it really matter?
Maybe a "port" revision bump is needed?

Thanks for all your time, and consideration.

--Chris
Comment 4 John Marino freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2014-10-31 16:53:36 UTC
Yes, it matters.  The port is getting removed in less than a month too.
If you care, bump the PORTREVISION and explain what the changes were.  How else are you going to convince people this is not a tampered-with distfile?
Comment 5 Chris Hutchinson 2014-11-02 19:45:33 UTC
Created attachment 148958 [details]
make fetchable, repack, bump PORTREVISION

Here is a revised version (replaces previous) that takes into
account for all the comments the first diff(1) generated;

* repacked source to remain consistent with the other
  source I host (the original source remains UNCHANGED)
  which necessitates PORTREVISION bump

* UNbreak port (it now becomes fetchable)

Hope this addresses all the currently outstanding issues. :)

--Chris
Comment 6 Chris Hutchinson 2014-11-03 14:09:19 UTC
(In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #5)
> Created attachment 148958 [details]
> make fetchable, repack, bump PORTREVISION
> 
> Here is a revised version (replaces previous) that takes into
> account for all the comments the first diff(1) generated;
> 
> * repacked source to remain consistent with the other
>   source I host (the original source remains UNCHANGED)
>   which necessitates PORTREVISION bump
> 
> * UNbreak port (it now becomes fetchable)
> 
> Hope this addresses all the currently outstanding issues. :)
> 
> --Chris

All of this is now moot.
Maintainer opened a new pr(1):

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194775

Please mark this closed.

--Chris
Comment 7 John Marino freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2014-11-03 14:29:49 UTC
withdrawn