Re: [32983] trunk/dports/gnome/libgtkhtml3/Portfile
On Jan 15, 2008, at 8:23 PM, nox@macports.org wrote:
Revision 32983 Author nox@macports.org Date 2008-01-15 16:53:06 -0800 (Tue, 15 Jan 2008) Log Message
libgtkhtml3: * Fixed dependencies. * Removed useless configure env variable. Modified Paths
trunk/dports/gnome/libgtkhtml3/Portfile Diff
Modified: trunk/dports/gnome/libgtkhtml3/Portfile (32982 => 32983) --- trunk/dports/gnome/libgtkhtml3/Portfile 2008-01-15 23:56:28 UTC (rev 32982) +++ trunk/dports/gnome/libgtkhtml3/Portfile 2008-01-16 00:53:06 UTC (rev 32983) @@ -2,10 +2,11 @@
PortSystem 1.0
-name libgtkhtml3 +name libgtkhtml3 set my_name gtkhtml version 3.16.0 set branch [join [lrange [split ${version} .] 0 1] .] +set revision 1
Off the top of my head, I'd be wary this local "revision" variable may collide with the internal "revision" property of Portfiles. I don't see any other use of "revision" in your Portfile which makes me think that you are using it in the regular context of a Portfile revision; but if that's the case, why do you use "set"? Regards,... -jmpp
Le 16 janv. 08 à 05:46, Juan Manuel Palacios a écrit :
On Jan 15, 2008, at 8:23 PM, nox@macports.org wrote:
Revision 32983 Author nox@macports.org Date 2008-01-15 16:53:06 -0800 (Tue, 15 Jan 2008) Log Message
libgtkhtml3: * Fixed dependencies. * Removed useless configure env variable. Modified Paths
trunk/dports/gnome/libgtkhtml3/Portfile Diff
Modified: trunk/dports/gnome/libgtkhtml3/Portfile (32982 => 32983) --- trunk/dports/gnome/libgtkhtml3/Portfile 2008-01-15 23:56:28 UTC (rev 32982) +++ trunk/dports/gnome/libgtkhtml3/Portfile 2008-01-16 00:53:06 UTC (rev 32983) @@ -2,10 +2,11 @@
PortSystem 1.0
-name libgtkhtml3 +name libgtkhtml3 set my_name gtkhtml version 3.16.0 set branch [join [lrange [split ${version} .] 0 1] .] +set revision 1
Off the top of my head, I'd be wary this local "revision" variable may collide with the internal "revision" property of Portfiles. I don't see any other use of "revision" in your Portfile which makes me think that you are using it in the regular context of a Portfile revision; but if that's the case, why do you use "set"?
Regards,...
Maybe I've got bored of simply writing "revision 1" with all of these "set branch blabla" everywhere. My mistake. Thanks for noticing. -- Anthony Ramine, the "Ports tree cleaning Maestro". <nox@macports.org>
participants (2)
-
Juan Manuel Palacios
-
N_Ox