[MacPorts] #44583: new port: hercules-devel
#44583: new port: hercules-devel ------------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: benoit.triquet@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: submission | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.3.1 Keywords: | Port: hercules-devel ------------------------------+-------------------------------- Please find a new port for the devel branch of Hercules, currently named 4.00. "port lint" is clean, otool -L does not find dependencies outside hercules-devel and /usr/lib. Other changes to the Portfile vs. the 3.10 update I just posted: - added a conflict with hercules - upstream does not have a tarball so fetch from git and since they don't have any tag, use the current head - probably not smart so if you want to freeze the revision used for the build, know that the head i used was fdff4512ae71d3eb8991357100909e1e3b3f660b from july the 26th and that worked fine - autotools have to be invoked manually -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/44583> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X
#44583: new port: hercules-devel -------------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: benoit.triquet@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: submission | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.3.1 Resolution: | Keywords: Port: hercules-devel | -------------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment (by benoit.triquet@…): Also, isn't it misleading to use the upstream candidate version number "4.00" ? In debian they would probably append the snapshot date or git hash somehow. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/44583#comment:1> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X
#44583: new port: hercules-devel -------------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: benoit.triquet@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: submission | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.3.1 Resolution: | Keywords: Port: hercules-devel | -------------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment (by larryv@…): Replying to [comment:1 benoit.triquet@…]:
Also, isn't it misleading to use the upstream candidate version number "4.00" ? In debian they would probably append the snapshot date or git hash somehow.
Yes, we usually do something similar. (See the `gcc410` and `clang-3.5` ports, for example.) -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/44583#comment:2> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X
#44583: new port: hercules-devel -------------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: benoit.triquet@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: submission | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.3.1 Resolution: | Keywords: Port: hercules-devel | -------------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment (by benoit.triquet@…): Replying to [comment:2 larryv@…]:
Replying to [comment:1 benoit.triquet@…]:
Also, isn't it misleading to use the upstream candidate version number "4.00" ? In debian they would probably append the snapshot date or git hash somehow.
Yes, we usually do something similar. (See the `gcc410` and `clang-3.5` ports, for example.)
Thanks. gcc410 uses a date, clang-3.5 an svn rev number which like mercurial increases monotonically and I guess that's a requirement so actually the git hash won't do. I inspected a number of git-based portfiles, all seemed to fetch a specific commit or tag so I guess a 4.00-HEAD portfile that builds whatever is the upstream head at the time a user installs the port, is not a good idea. I just rebuild from HEAD, I am updating my proposed portfile to that known-good commit hash. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/44583#comment:3> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X
participants (1)
-
MacPorts