Bug 228521 - audio/festival: Update to 2.5
Summary: audio/festival: Update to 2.5
Status: Open
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: --- Affects Only Me
Assignee: freebsd-ports-bugs (Nobody)
URL:
Keywords: needs-patch
Depends on:
Blocks: 228520
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2018-05-26 21:21 UTC by Michael Danilov
Modified: 2020-07-12 04:20 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
bugzilla: maintainer-feedback? (mi)


Attachments
audio/festival (9.08 KB, patch)
2018-05-26 21:21 UTC, Michael Danilov
no flags Details | Diff
WIP version using salsa.debian.org (24.27 KB, patch)
2018-06-02 13:00 UTC, Fernando Apesteguía
no flags Details | Diff
WIP shar file with port skeleton (24.18 KB, text/plain)
2018-06-02 22:22 UTC, Fernando Apesteguía
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Michael Danilov 2018-05-26 21:21:47 UTC
Created attachment 193730 [details]
audio/festival
Comment 1 Fernando Apesteguía freebsd_committer 2018-05-28 15:28:34 UTC
Take
Comment 2 Fernando Apesteguía freebsd_committer 2018-05-28 16:02:46 UTC
Hi Michael,

There are a number of issues with the patch.

* It does not fetch patches.
* PORTVERSION and DISTVERSION can not be used simultaneously
* The patches in files/ are not generated in the proper format

Would you have a look at them?
Comment 3 Michael Danilov 2018-06-02 12:18:37 UTC
Hi,

Sure, I will take a look
Comment 4 Fernando Apesteguía freebsd_committer 2018-06-02 13:00:02 UTC
Created attachment 193912 [details]
WIP version  using salsa.debian.org
Comment 5 Fernando Apesteguía freebsd_committer 2018-06-02 13:01:04 UTC
Hi Michael,

I uploaded a work in progress version of a patch. The main problem is that I can not found the patches to apply in salsa.debian.org.
Comment 6 Michael Danilov 2018-06-02 13:16:43 UTC
Thank you!

It seems the patch fetching part is beyond me so far.

About patches, "make clean patch makepatch" freaks out and creates a lot of new files in files/ -- I'd rather selectively bring the patches that I changed to the spec, and not touch those that I don't know what they're doing and leave them to the maintainer?
Comment 7 Mikhail Teterin freebsd_committer 2018-06-02 19:36:57 UTC
Michael, thank you for all the work you've put in so far. And thank you, Fernando, for the testing.

Regarding the last point in comment #2:

> * The patches in files/ are not generated in the proper format
"proper" is not the right word.

At least some of the current patches have been "hand-made" and/or contain comments describing their purpose and origin. It may also be better to group multiple related patches -- such as those addressing the same bug -- into a single file.

Please, do not regenerate them all JUST to satisfy portlint.

> I'd rather selectively bring the patches that I changed to the spec
Yes, the completely new and unrelated patches can be generated to satisfy everyone :)
Comment 8 Fernando Apesteguía freebsd_committer 2018-06-02 22:21:32 UTC
(In reply to Mikhail Teterin from comment #7)

While I agree with Mikhail that we shouldn't make portlint happy for
the sake of it, I think the patches are clear enough to be
autogenerated in a file basis. This sometimes helps debugging problems
since one can one pretty easily know if a file will be patched or not.

I think regenerating the patches will improve the port.

Regarding the other issue, Michael

In order to regenerate the patches, you would need to apply the
patches in files/ by hand (make extract && cd work && for patch_file
in ../files/patch-*;do patch -p0 -E -i ${patch_fiile};done && cd .. &&
make makepatch

I attach a .shar file that has the patch files reworked.

There's still the pending issue with the extra patch files that need
to be downloaded. There are a number of patches in salsa.debian.org
but their names don't seem to reflect a relation with the patches we
need.
Comment 9 Fernando Apesteguía freebsd_committer 2018-06-02 22:22:08 UTC
Created attachment 193951 [details]
WIP shar file with port skeleton
Comment 10 Mark Linimon freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2020-03-27 07:07:38 UTC
The [tag] convention is not necessary anymore.
Comment 11 Kubilay Kocak freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2020-03-27 11:50:57 UTC
@Fernando, Why do we have a shar for a port update? If they're no longer needed, or obsolete, let's obsolete the existing attachments so they don't confuse the current state of the issue

@Maintainer Are you able to provide a QA'd patch to resolve this issue?
Comment 12 Mikhail Teterin freebsd_committer 2020-03-28 18:16:59 UTC
(In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #11)
Creating a patch from shar is easy -- and Michael has done that already.

What I'd like to do is break the port into two: speech_tools and festival itself, depending on the former...
Comment 13 Kubilay Kocak freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2020-03-29 02:11:38 UTC
(In reply to Mikhail Teterin from comment #12)

It just occured to me that you might be mi@aldan (maintainer). If this is the case, please assign yourself the issue, and ideally, update your maintainer lines to use your bugzilla email. That way the auto-assigner can handle your ports PR's without someone else having to manually :)