Bug 252500 - textproc/wikiman: Update to 2.12.2
Summary: textproc/wikiman: Update to 2.12.2
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: https://github.com/filiparag/wikiman/...
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2021-01-07 21:35 UTC by Filip Parag
Modified: 2021-01-08 20:36 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments
wikiman 2.12.2 (1.03 KB, patch)
2021-01-07 21:35 UTC, Filip Parag
filip: maintainer-approval+
Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Filip Parag 2021-01-07 21:35:30 UTC
Created attachment 221370 [details]
wikiman 2.12.2

Changelog in update 2.12.2:
- Minor packaging and makefile fixes
- Updated sources
Comment 1 daniel.engberg.lists 2021-01-08 07:04:38 UTC
Hi Filip,

We can't use release archive as suggested by Porter's Handbook?
https://github.com/filiparag/wikiman/releases/tag/2.12.2 --> https://github.com/filiparag/wikiman/releases/download/2.12.2/wikiman-2.12.2.txz

Best regards,
Daniel
Comment 2 Fernando Apesteguía freebsd_committer 2021-01-08 17:03:49 UTC
^Triage: Please set the maintainer-approval attachment flag (to +) on patches for ports you maintain to signify approval.
--
Attachment -> Details -> maintainer-approval [+]


Thanks!
Comment 3 Filip Parag 2021-01-08 19:39:55 UTC
(In reply to daniel.engberg.lists from comment #1)

Hello Daniel,

I am not sure I understand you. Do you mean to change the URL of this bug report, to download prebuilt .txz package from GitHub, or something else completely?

I ran portlint on the port and also followed the 5.4.3 section in the Porter's Handbook when I was making the original port submission.
Comment 4 daniel.engberg.lists 2021-01-08 19:44:29 UTC
Hi,

I should've provided a reference:

5.4.3. USE_GITHUB
"If the distribution file comes from a specific commit or tag on GitHub for which there is no officially released file"
On GitHub that would be archive(s) found under "Asset" with a filename set (not Source code at the bottom).

Sorry for the confusion
Comment 5 Filip Parag 2021-01-08 20:02:21 UTC
(In reply to daniel.engberg.lists from comment #4)

Sorry, but I am still confused.

The package released on GitHub, as a part of release assets, is built with all of the options enabled. As it is set currently, the source files are pulled and the port is build locally with selected options.

I didn't set GH_TAGNAME as it is identical to DISTVERSION nor MASTER_SITES as it is set by using USE_GITHUB.

Can you give me more details? I read through 5.4.3 again and can't infer what you are pointing at exactly.
Comment 6 daniel.engberg.lists 2021-01-08 20:14:29 UTC
Ahh, I see where the confusion is =)

USE_GITHUB utilize GitHub's ability to generate archives on the fly which the handbook advices against doing if possible ("no officially released file"). What I'm asking is if it's possible to use the linked archive (and MASTER_SITES) or if it's incomplete in any way that prevents us from doing so.
Comment 7 Filip Parag 2021-01-08 20:36:32 UTC
(In reply to daniel.engberg.lists from comment #6)

Now that you explained what "no officially released file" means, I understand where are you coming from.

As it currently stands (and probably will forever), this project doesn't have automated service for building FreeBSD package, only for officially supported Linux distributions. I build .txz manually on my workstation whenever I create a new release.

Using MASTER_SITES to pull the published .txz package and to extract files required for the options the user selects would, in my opinion, be fine in case there was a build service for future releases.

On the other hand, this project is in maintenance mode for the most part (eg. I'm not planning to add any features, only merge PRs and provide patches and minor updates), so there won't be frequent releases and manual package builds.

I would leave as is for now, unless there is a significant advantage to using MASTER_SITES with all of this in mind.

I am open to further discussion, and if you want, feel free to submit modified Makefile as a pull request upstream.