On Apr 12, 2007, at 8:54 PM, source_changes@macosforge.org wrote:
Revision: 23888 http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/changeset/23888 Author: eridius@macports.org Date: 2007-04-12 04:54:10 -0700 (Thu, 12 Apr 2007)
Log Message: ----------- Fix livecheck to check for master_sites properly. If a portfile isn't set up for livecheck and isn't a sourceforge/ freshmeat project, default to none, not freshmeat (which would cause a failure). Clean up some if checks to avoid unnecessary syntax
and
Revision: 23889 http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/changeset/23889 Author: eridius@macports.org Date: 2007-04-12 04:55:42 -0700 (Thu, 12 Apr 2007)
Log Message: ----------- Make the up-to-date message for livecheck be info, not debug
Hello Kevin, As I understand it, in addition to fixing and cleaning the code, you changed the semantics of livecheck significantly (without modifying the documentation). Previously, livecheck would: - report an error if it didn't work - default to freshmeat if nothing was set - be silent if the port was up to date Now, livecheck will: - report an error if it didn't work - be silent if nothing was set - report if the port was up to date The old observed behavior when everything was ok (nothing was displayed) now means that nothing was checked, which is quite a problem if the goal of a maintainer is to keep their ports up to date. The advantage of the original semantics is that it drives port maintainers to write livecheck for their ports, while setting a good default so that most ports don't need a specific livecheck. Basically, you livecheck your ports and any output means that you have to do something, shall it implement a specific livecheck because default doesn't work or update because the port was updated upstream. What argument do you have in favor of this change of semantics? Can we decide on reverting to the previous behavior? Paul