Created attachment 210573 [details]
Update to 2.2.9
Use xz archive instead of bz2
Disable examples as they're not used
Make "make test" work and only build tests if enabled
Feel free to "backport" Makefile changes to 2.2.8 if you still think it's not worth updating to 2.2.9 as mentioned in PR#242215.
Created attachment 210574 [details]
Build info is available at https://gitlab.com/swills/freebsd-ports/pipelines/108228612
A note from maintainer.
Please consider PR #242215 :
How about staying on the current version, would that be acceptable?
(In reply to daniel.engberg.lists from comment #4)
If this is a question for me, then could you kindly explain what this question means? What do you call "current version"? The latest commit? Have you read discussion from PR#242215? If you want this port to be updated to any version published by the upstream, and without thinking if it is necessary at all for this particular opsys, they you do it without me. Repeat, I do not approve this patch.
Created attachment 210639 [details]
Same as previous except for the version bump
Created attachment 210640 [details]
I apologize for not being clear about it, by current version I was referring to the current version in the ports tree (2.2.8).
Also tested on 13-CURRENT r356392 (AMD64)
Best regards, Daniel
Sergei is the last patch acceptable to you?
You are asking this for the 3-rd time, are you?
Repeat from PR#242215: because of exprun, this port should not be touched unless absolutely necessary. You patch offers changes which are trivial, not needed and not justified, but I have noted your ideas. At the moment working on future version with multiple bug-fixes and multiple new features. In due time I will reconsider your ideas, and maybe reject some of them again.
Let me kindly ask that somebody closes this PR as "rejected" or "not needed".
So I'm curious, what's so expensive about an exp-run?
And if we're doing one anyway, why not bump the version?
this seems like an overly-rude response to a reasonable request.
Also, as a side note, an exp-run is required when the version changes, not when doing cosmetic changes to the Makefile.
(In reply to Warner Losh from comment #11)
1. Let me apologize before any one, for whom my response seems to be rude.
2. About expenses of exp-run. Last time exp-run for this port spotted some problems with a port, which I never had heard about. Then nothing happend for a long time. Then I had to open another PR about this problematic port, invent a solution and suggest the solution to the maintainer of the problematic port. And only after that my initial patch was committed. Since then I am afraid of exp-runs.
Created attachment 218505 [details]
Patch for expat2 v2
Update to 2.2.10
Addtional fixes to "make test" target
Compile tested on FreeBSD 13.0-CURRENT #0 r364979 (amd64) (make + make check-plist + make test)
Poudriere testport OK 12.1-RELEASE (amd64)
(In reply to daniel.engberg.lists from comment #14)
Let me step down from maintainership of this port. Notes from former maintainer:
1) Target "post-install" should be changed into "post-install-DOCS-on". Or option DOCS has no sence.
2) Normally testing (make test) should be workable before "make install". But with the proposed solution it works only after "make install". To see this effect run poudriere in interactive mode with option TEST enabled.
Created attachment 218883 [details]
Patch for expat v3
Return port to pool by request of maintainer
Fix DOCS and add MANPAGES menu options