Created attachment 168505 [details]
Why not create a separate port for FlightCrew ? It looks like you're just building it on the side, without any links with Sigil at all.
- FlightCrew was a part of Sigil in previous versions.
- Sigil would be the only consumer of FlightCrew at present.
- Most of dependencies are shared between each of them.
- Someone once told me that new addition (including repo-copy) of
"no person claims the exclusive right" port is strictly prohibited.
Since it is certain to be seen as somewhat eccentric design, I would like
to resubmit the stripped-down version if you have difficulty in accepting
the current state.
Mmmm, well, creating a new port is forbidden, yes, this is more of a split.
Could you provide a new patch with the sigil port, and the FlightCrew new port ? (no need to open a new PR)
Also, I don't have difficulties with this version.
I found something strange and asked about it, it's all :-)
Created attachment 168626 [details]
It will take some more time to finish porting FlightClue. We had better
focus on upgrading Sigil at the moment.
0.9.5 is already available. No plist changes since 0.9.4.
Created attachment 168698 [details]
Version 0.9.5 has been released.
A commit references this bug:
Date: Fri Apr 1 15:57:44 UTC 2016
New revision: 412359
Update to 0.9.5.
Submitted by: tkato432 yahoo com
Sponsored by: Absolight
Created attachment 169091 [details]
Here is a experimental port of FlightCrew.
(bugzilla forces me to add a comment, so I'm adding a comment.)
Could you also provide a patch for sigil to use flightcrew ?
In this case, I suppose there is no need to change anything to sigil
port. It would probably be enough to add conditional RUN_DEPENDS to
flightcrew port when PLUGINS option is enabled. To tell the truth, I
have been totally forgotten about that.