Created attachment 167344 [details]
- update from 0.9.4 to 1.0.0
> -# $FreeBSD$
This seems to have been removed by mistake.
(In reply to Raphael Kubo da Costa from comment #1)
> > -# $FreeBSD$
> This seems to have been removed by mistake.
I don't think we need a tag anymore, I'd let a committer to decide whether to keep it or not.
(In reply to mp39590 from comment #2)
> I don't think we need a tag anymore, I'd let a committer to decide whether
> to keep it or not.
A committer like me? ;)
The $FreeBSD$ tag is not optional: all Makefiles are supposed to have them. It's covered in a bit more detail in https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/book.html#porting-makefile and https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/book.html#porting-samplem.
Can this update be landed independently from the bugs it blocks (ie. the existing versions of the orthanc-* ports will continue working with an updated orthanc) or do they all actually need to be committed together?
They're supposed to be committed together or with short interval in-between.
Sorry, but that's not a satisfactory answer: either the science/orthanc update breaks the dependent ports or it does not. If it does, everything must be committed together; if it doesn't, it shouldn't matter how long it takes for the updates to the dependent ports to be committed.
They're supposed to be committed together, will it be done in 1 commit or in 4 (with short intervals) probably regulated by internal committer rules which are unknown for me.
A commit references this bug:
Date: Wed Mar 16 10:36:35 UTC 2016
New revision: 411220
Update to 1.0.0.
Submitted by: email@example.com (maintainer)
Committed after restoring the $FreeBSD$ that you did not add back.
Hi, can you please provide entire makefile content... not sure where/how to apply the patch
The patch in this bug report has already been applied and should already be part of your ports tree.