Bug 244799 - net/avahi: update to 0.8
Summary: net/avahi: update to 0.8
Status: Closed DUPLICATE of bug 250354
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: --- Affects Only Me
Assignee: freebsd-gnome (Nobody)
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 249745
  Show dependency tree / graph
 
Reported: 2020-03-13 22:33 UTC by Val Packett
Modified: 2020-12-13 10:54 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

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

Attachments
avahi-undo-qt5.patch (38.43 KB, patch)
2020-03-13 22:33 UTC, Val Packett 		no flags Details | Diff
avahi-0.8.patch (29.73 KB, patch)
2020-03-13 22:33 UTC, Val Packett 		no flags Details | Diff
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Val Packett 2020-03-13 22:33:16 UTC 
Created attachment 212392 [details]
avahi-undo-qt5.patch

Avahi 0.8 was released 2020-02-18.

ABI of client libraries is backwards compatible: https://abi-laboratory.pro/index.php?view=timeline&l=avahi

For some reason some files are missing from the tarball — the build-db script (required for py-avahi) and the bssh and avahi-discover manpages (who cares).
Had to download build-db from github.

For easier reviewing, the patch is split into two parts.

Patch 1 partially reverts "Add avahi-qt5 which links against Qt5." which a backport of something that's included in 0.8 now.
Comment 1 Val Packett 2020-03-13 22:33:56 UTC 
Created attachment 212393 [details]
avahi-0.8.patch

Patch 2 is the actual update.
Comment 2 Rene Ladan freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2020-11-16 21:44:25 UTC 
If I `git apply avahi-undo-qt5.patch` and then `git apply avahi-0.8.patch` on top of that the first part succeeds (with a whitespace error) but the second part fails.
Comment 3 Rene Ladan freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2020-12-12 11:32:06 UTC 
Greg and Olivier: how does this PR relate to 250354, they seem to pursue more or less the same goal?
Comment 4 Val Packett 2020-12-12 16:50:57 UTC 
(In reply to Rene Ladan from comment #3)
Mine is worse, 250354 seems like a better one
Comment 5 Rene Ladan freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2020-12-13 10:54:35 UTC 
Closed in favor of 250354 which seems to be a better approach.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 250354 ***