Created attachment 177954 [details]
This is a new port that was cloned from net-mgmt/ccnet with regenerated patch files and updated pkg-desc / comment. Why was this cloned? Seafile decided to split the client and server repos thus why a cloned port was created.
testing: I have tested the update proccess from 6.0.0 --> 6.0.4 (seahub and ccnet/seafile depends) and went smooth. I'v also created a fresh jail and created a fresh install and worked as expected. More testing always welcome of course.
Ccnet is a framework for writing networked applications in C. It provides
the services of peer identification, connection management, service
invocation, and message sending. In ccnet network, there are two types of
nodes, i.e., client and server. Server has the following functions, User
management, Group management.
WARN: Makefile: Consider adding support for a NLS knob to conditionally disable gettext support.
0 fatal errors and 1 warning found.
Just to be clear, do you want to retire net-mgmt/ccnet and have net-mgmt/ccnet-server instead?
(In reply to Thomas Zander from comment #1)
The netmgmt/ccnet and netmgmt/seafile port will turn into a client ports. Have an update that i'm currently testing. If they all is well during the tests, will be posted with the bug #215294 as a depend.
The reason they are being cloned instead of modified and/or changed at the same time is to prevent breakage due to upgrading between the several revisions coming. I hope this sounds more logical.
(In reply to Ultima from comment #2)
Okay, the additional info helps.
So in the end, when all the changes are in place, we should have:
All of those should be installable on a machine at the same time with no conflicts. Since the dependencies to(wards) other ports are very limited, it should be possible to perform all the required updates without breaking anything else. Do you think it's feasible to provide a set of five patches to accomplish this?
(In reply to Thomas Zander from comment #3)
Wasn't planning on changing the -client port names because upstream has not done so. However this is a simple task and will help prevent any confusion. Patch files updated.
My goal was to have all the ports conflict free. However, decided to address this upstream so that may take more time to achieve.
Currently the conflicts are as followed.
net-mgmt/ccnet: Conflicts with net-mgmt/ccnet-server
net-mgmt/seafile: Conflicts with net-mgmt/seafile-server
There should be no breakage at all if applied in proper order. The last two patch files net-mgmt/ccnet and net-mgmt/seafile may have caused issues because I was generating them without others being committed. Generated them with diff instead of svn diff so this issue should be resolved.
If a single patch file is desired, this can be done instead. At the beginning of my porting experience I was under the impression that was frowned upon.
A commit references this bug:
Date: Sun Dec 25 14:38:36 UTC 2016
New revision: 429432
Prepare split of net-mgmt/ccnet in client / server ports; update to 6.0.6
Submitted by: Ultima1252@gmail.com (maintainer)
A commit references this bug:
Date: Sun Dec 25 17:52:12 UTC 2016
New revision: 429448
Register CONFLICTS with ccnet-server