Created attachment 156834 [details] diff -Nru comms/owfs.orig comms/owfs update owfs port to version 3.1p0 see attachment
Created attachment 156859 [details] new diff, add missed USES=pkgconfig add missed USES=pkgconfig
Created attachment 156861 [details] unset X options, code clean third version =)
Hi, thanks for the patch! My only objection is the changes made to pkg-plist, a lot of conditionals have been removed, and some files have been removed totally (i.e. python, tcl). If this is adjusted, I see no problem with accepting it (haven't tested it myself though). Johan
(In reply to johan from comment #3) Yes, pkg-plist my fault, too relied on automation (make makeplist) need use first version https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=156834&action=diff simple change 2.8->3.0
Created attachment 156863 [details] revert pkg-plist I revert pkg-plist to previous patch version
156863 looks good to me! The porter admins usually want the output of 'portlint -A' and a poudriere testport log, can you provide this as well?
lissyara# portlint -A WARN: Makefile: [59]: possible direct use of command "python" found. use ${PYTHON_CMD} instead. WARN: Makefile: for new port, make $FreeBSD$ tag in comment section empty, to make SVN happy. WARN: /usr/ports/comms/owfs/files/patch-module_owfs_src_c_owfs.c: patch was not generated using ``make makepatch''. It is recommended to use ``make makepatch'' to ensure proper patch format. WARN: Consider to set DEVELOPER=yes in /etc/make.conf 0 fatal errors and 4 warnings found. lissyara#
Created attachment 156864 [details] poudriere bulk -t log for Comment 5 version patch
Created attachment 156865 [details] fix files/patch-module_owfs_src_c_owfs.c regenerate files/patch-module_owfs_src_c_owfs.c "make makepatch" for remove warning portlint
I've found two problems: a) OWFS does not build without EXTENDED_RWLOCK_DEBUG enabled. Patch attached & also commited upstream (https://sourceforge.net/p/owfs/code/ci/289eaf2329b8cc8b80aa85c6e8572bd6be124629/) b) The Makefile patch removes some python magic. The result is failed testport QA: ====> Running Q/A tests (stage-qa) Error: 'lib/python2.7/site-packages/ownet/connection.pyc' is referring to /wrkdirs/usr/ports/comms/owfs/work/stage Error: 'lib/python2.7/site-packages/ownet/__init__.pyc' is referring to /wrkdirs/usr/ports/comms/owfs/work/stage Error: 'lib/python2.7/site-packages/ow/__init__.pyc' is referring to /wrkdirs/usr/ports/comms/owfs/work/stage *** Error code 1 Any specific reason for changing that part of the Makefile?
Created attachment 156889 [details] Patch for broken ow_rwlock.c
Created attachment 156994 [details] poudriere bulk -t log Сonfirm need revert python magic for build with python option. I'm test new patch, build success without any DEBUG (OWDEBUG and OWMUTEXDEBUG) Log success build without DEBUGS https://bitbucket.org/f_andrey/redports_andrey/src/23e12be3f844ba20834addb4f7e63bf4e186c34c?at=owfs
Great! Now my only question left is, why compile python two times? The do-build compileall calls are rendered moot by doing it in post-install, I would think? For the record, the post-install python cmd comes from this page: https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/using-python.html
Thanks for following up and progressing this issue Johan. Submitter, can you combine all patches to the current port and attach a single attachment produced via svn diff, diff -U or port diff (porttools) please. Please also ensure you obsolete all previous patches so that it's clear what needs to be committed. You can do so by clicking on Attachment "Details", clicking "Edit Details" then ticking "Obsolete". Let's also ensure that the the QA results (poudriere logs) are updated to account for all of the latest changes. Johan, when this issue is ready to commit, please mention which "attachment xxxxx is approved" and set maintainer-feedback to +
sorry for long response. see new combined patch
Created attachment 157649 [details] combined patch
Thanks! I'm still unclear on why the do-build step is added on line 119? The compile-all step is done in post-install, why add it in do-build too?
I think, Andrey Fesenko
(In reply to johan from comment #17) I do not insist on keeping my patch, but many ports carry a clear procedure for compiling python, therefore, it has been added to section do-build: when discussing the need for this section, in IRC #freebsd-python came the proposal (12:22:08) koobs: faa: you probably want distversion for that version string
Okay. If I understand correct, the same compilation is done later in post-install anyway, since we have to build with the specific hack from https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/using-python.html. I did some testing. The optimized files (-O) are not actually built at all, maybe erased somehow? If I add the following... (cd ${STAGEDIR}${PREFIX} \ && ${PYTHON_CMD} -O ${PYTHON_LIBDIR}/compileall.py \ -d ${PYTHONPREFIX_SITELIBDIR} -f ${PYTHONPREFIX_SITELIBDIR:S;${PREFIX}/;;}) ..I get the following errors: Error: Orphaned: %%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/ow/__init__.pyo Error: Orphaned: %%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/ownet/__init__.pyo Error: Orphaned: %%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/ownet/connection.pyo Without the above change (only having @${PYTHON_CMD} -O -m compileall ${WRKSRC}), the .pyo files are never installed and thus never orphaned. My vote is to do the following: * Remove the do-build section python calls * Add the above compileall with the -O flag to post-install * Add .pyo files for each .pyc file in pkg-plist With those changes, it builds fine here, with .pyo files installed. To admin@lissyara.su, could you add those minor changes to the patch you've already created please? Then I think we're good for maintainer-approval.
see attachment
Created attachment 157826 [details] combined with pyo, -O and without do-build combined v2
Created attachment 157827 [details] Final port patch Thanks! Almost correct, the -O section was supposed to be in addition to the previous one, not instead of. This attached patch corrects this (and also my email address). This should be the final one, I think. I cannot mark your patch as obsolete though. Marked maintainer-approval +!
maybe somebody commit this?
Not sure how to "call out" for commits.. If you remove the 'needs-patch' keyword and add a 'patch-ready' keyword, it might help?
I cannot modify "Keywords" field...
Oh, ok. I assumed that the creator of the issue would be able to... Don't know what else I can do except setting "maintainer-approval +"
A commit references this bug: Author: amdmi3 Date: Wed Aug 26 16:29:57 UTC 2015 New revision: 395372 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/395372 Log: - Update to 3.1p0 PR: 200245 Submitted by: johan@stromnet.se (maintainer) Reported by: admin@lissyara.su Changes: head/comms/owfs/Makefile head/comms/owfs/Makefile.options head/comms/owfs/distinfo head/comms/owfs/files/patch-module_owfs_src_c_owfs.c head/comms/owfs/files/patch-module_owlib_src_c_ow__rwlock.c head/comms/owfs/pkg-plist