Created attachment 189797 [details]
security/py-pycryptodome: Prep for slave, CONFLICT with security/py-pycrypto
* Set a few variables with "?=" instead of "=" to avoid overwriting variables the new slave port will need to set for itself.
* Define a new NAMESPACE variable that the slave can override for the
STRIP_CMD in the post-install target.
* While here, register CONFLICTS with security/py-pycrypto
* Bump PORTREVISION because of the new CONFLICTS.
poudriere: OK -- testport w/py27 (default), py34, py35, py36
Created attachment 189873 [details]
security/py-pycryptodome: Slave prep, CONFLICTS, take maintainership
Update patch to take maintainership.
Created attachment 190317 [details]
security/py-pycryptodome: Upgrade to 3.4.11, etc
* Upgrade to 3.4.11
* Take maintainership
* Register CONFLICTS_INSTALL with security/py-pycrypto
* Prepare for security/py-pycryptodomex slave port
poudriere: OK -- testport on 10.4R amd64 w/py27 (default), py34, py35, py36
Could you please also attach here the shar of security/py-pycryptodomex slave port?
I can commit them together. The whole picture will be more obvious.
(In reply to Yuri Victorovich from comment #3)
The patch to add security/py-cryptodomex is available as the current attachment to bug #225217.
All hunks of the current patch on this bug may be committed independently prior to landing that one. Already, ports r462447 landed the CONFLICTS hunk and ports r461337 landed the upgrade to 3.4.11 hunks.
It is your prerogative as a committer to combine patches from multiple bugs if you believe it is necessary. It is not necessary in this case.
Created attachment 191203 [details]
security/py-pycryptodome: Parameterize namespace and take maintainership
Rebase patch on latest commit.
A commit references this bug:
Date: Sun Jun 17 01:21:46 UTC 2018
New revision: 472580
security/py-pycryptodome: Make namespace changeable by slave ports
Also transfer maintainership to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Submitted by: John W. O'Brien <email@example.com>