#40263: goffice: update to 0.10.5 -------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: c.herbig@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: update | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.2.0 Resolution: | Keywords: haspatch Port: goffice | -------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment (by ryandesign@…): When the version is increased, the revision should drop to 0. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/40263#comment:1> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X

#40263: goffice: update to 0.10.6 -------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: c.herbig@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: update | Status: closed Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.2.0 Resolution: fixed | Keywords: haspatch Port: goffice | -------------------------+-------------------------------- Changes (by ryandesign@…): * status: new => closed * cc: ryandesign@… (added) * resolution: => fixed Comment: I see now goffice has a subport goffice08, which did not specify its own revision, therefore it inherited revision 1 from the main port, therefore it needs to stay at revision 1. Does the new quartz variant work with the goffice08 subport? The patch doesn't apply so I assume not, in which case it should be inside an "if {${name} eq ${subport}}" block to make it apply only to the main goffice port. In fact a lot of the goffice port should be inside such a block so as not to leak definitions into the subport. Committed in r110210. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/40263#comment:3> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X

#40263: goffice: update to 0.10.6 -------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: c.herbig@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: update | Status: closed Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.2.0 Resolution: fixed | Keywords: haspatch Port: goffice | -------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment (by larryv@…): Replying to [comment:4 c.herbig@…]:

Replying to [comment:3 ryandesign@…]:

...

The patch doesn't apply so I assume not, in which case it should be inside an "if {${name} eq ${subport}}" block to make it apply only to the main goffice port. In fact a lot of the goffice port should be inside such a block so as not to leak definitions into the subport. ... um... ok.

You could also use a subport block. {{{ subport ${name} { variant quartz {} } }}} I generally prefer this style, when I can get away with it. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/40263#comment:5> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X

#40263: goffice: update to 0.10.6 -------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: c.herbig@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: update | Status: closed Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.2.0 Resolution: fixed | Keywords: haspatch Port: goffice | -------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment (by c.herbig@…): Replying to [comment:6 ryandesign@…]:

That's what I did when I first started using subports, then Joshua told me the subport code in base was never designed to accommodate that usage (i.e. declaring a subport for ${name}) and might not work correctly, so I stopped doing that. I don't remember if base was subsequently changed to accommodate that or not. I've never seen any of that before, and subport is not documented in the documentation pages, or at least the last time I checked, when I split off goffice08 a few months ago. Either way, I suppose I really ought to just send the patch and info to the gnumeric/goffice developers.

-- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/40263#comment:7> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X