Easytag2, bug #11456
Hi, What do I need to do to get the portfile from this ticket commited? I realize some of the syntax for ports has changed since I modified the original easytag 1.1 port to build easytag 2.1. Is there anything special I need to keep in mind? -Andrew
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:32:27AM -0500, Andrew Cho wrote:
Hi,
What do I need to do to get the portfile from this ticket commited? I realize some of the syntax for ports has changed since I modified the original easytag 1.1 port to build easytag 2.1. Is there anything special I need to keep in mind?
-Andrew
Hi, first thanks for help. Would it be ok to update the easytag port from version 1.1 to 2.1 and the easytag-devel port to 2.1.3 or is there a specific reason two add a new easytag2 port? Can we add you as maintainer to the port? Thanks, Simon -- + privacy is necessary + using http://gnupg.org + public key id: 0x6115F804EFB33229
Simon Ruderich wrote:
Hi,
first thanks for help.
Would it be ok to update the easytag port from version 1.1 to 2.1 and the easytag-devel port to 2.1.3 or is there a specific reason two add a new easytag2 port?
Can we add you as maintainer to the port?
Originally, 1.1 was the stable branch, while the 2.x series was the development branch. Easytag has since changed 2.1 to stable and is developing the micro-revisions. I guess it isn't really necessary to have an additional port for the 2.x series anymore. I've change the port back to easytag. The updated portfile I attached to the ticket lists myself as maintainer and updates to 2.1.3. -Andrew
On Dec 11, 2007, at 22:05, Andrew Cho wrote:
Simon Ruderich wrote:
Would it be ok to update the easytag port from version 1.1 to 2.1 and the easytag-devel port to 2.1.3 or is there a specific reason two add a new easytag2 port?
Can we add you as maintainer to the port?
Originally, 1.1 was the stable branch, while the 2.x series was the development branch. Easytag has since changed 2.1 to stable and is developing the micro-revisions. I guess it isn't really necessary to have an additional port for the 2.x series anymore. I've change the port back to easytag.
The updated portfile I attached to the ticket lists myself as maintainer and updates to 2.1.3.
And then easytag-devel can be deleted, right?
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007, at 22:05, Andrew Cho wrote:
Originally, 1.1 was the stable branch, while the 2.x series was the development branch. Easytag has since changed 2.1 to stable and is developing the micro-revisions. I guess it isn't really necessary to have an additional port for the 2.x series anymore. I've change the port back to easytag.
The updated portfile I attached to the ticket lists myself as maintainer and updates to 2.1.3.
And then easytag-devel can be deleted, right?
That is correct. The easytag-devel should be superseded by this updated port. From what I gather, the easytag-devel port was initially split off because the stable source and the development source were major revision differences, but as of now, the stable and the devel releases are 3 micro revisions apart so I don't believe it has the same benefit to have two different ports. If there is interest in keeping them separate, I'm willing to maintain separate ports (stable & devel), though I don't see the need at this time. -Andrew
On Dec 12, 2007, at 00:03, Andrew Cho wrote:
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007, at 22:05, Andrew Cho wrote:
Originally, 1.1 was the stable branch, while the 2.x series was the development branch. Easytag has since changed 2.1 to stable and is developing the micro-revisions. I guess it isn't really necessary to have an additional port for the 2.x series anymore. I've change the port back to easytag.
The updated portfile I attached to the ticket lists myself as maintainer and updates to 2.1.3.
And then easytag-devel can be deleted, right?
That is correct. The easytag-devel should be superseded by this updated port. From what I gather, the easytag-devel port was initially split off because the stable source and the development source were major revision differences, but as of now, the stable and the devel releases are 3 micro revisions apart so I don't believe it has the same benefit to have two different ports. If there is interest in keeping them separate, I'm willing to maintain separate ports (stable & devel), though I don't see the need at this time.
Oh, so I see: 2.1 is stable, 2.1.3 (now 2.1.4) is devel. Well, if you think 2.1.3 (2.1.4) is stable enough for production use, then you can update the easytag port to that version. Though to be absolutely correct, easytag should stay at version 2.1 and easytag-devel should be 2.1.4 so that users who want to go with the developers' idea of "stable" can do so.
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
... Though to be absolutely correct, easytag should stay at version 2.1 and easytag-devel should be 2.1.4 so that users who want to go with the developers' idea of "stable" can do so.
I can't actually commit it yet. I've applied for commit privileges but I haven't heard anything back. I'll give it 3-5 days more and if I don't hear anything back, I'll come back here after setting up the trac ticket for exactly what I need done. Thanks, everyone, for your help. -Andrew
participants (3)
-
Andrew Cho
-
Ryan Schmidt
-
Simon Ruderich