[MacPorts] #38306: New port: osxbom
#38306: New port: osxbom ------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: egall@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: submission | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.1.3 Keywords: | Port: osxbom ------------------------+-------------------------------- osxbom is a free reimplementation of the NextSTEP/OSX `lsbom` utility. It is used by the PureDarwin project to deal with MacPorts binary packages. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/38306> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X
#38306: New port: osxbom -------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: egall@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: submission | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.1.3 Resolution: | Keywords: Port: osxbom | -------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment (by egall@…): Aw darn it I meant to include a link to the mailing post I was going to use as a reference: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puredarwin/72stXsTqVCo/F57CGhfnMV0J -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/38306#comment:1> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X
#38306: New port: osxbom -------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: egall@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: submission | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.1.3 Resolution: | Keywords: Port: osxbom | -------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment (by ryandesign@…): Since you are using "`use_configure no`" you need to ensure you're UsingTheRightCompiler and `-arch` flags and add a universal variant if possible. We don't want to create new variants with names beginning with "no_" anymore. Why is the functionality offered in the no_rename variant required? You might consider instead always installing the program with its normal name, but in a nonstandard directory like ${prefix}/libexec/${name} that wouldn't be in the user's $PATH. Is this really version 0.0.3 or did you just make that up? If the latter, consider using a version number made up of the release date instead, i.e. 20121004. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/38306#comment:2> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X
#38306: New port: osxbom -------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: egall@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: submission | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.1.3 Resolution: | Keywords: Port: osxbom | -------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment (by egall@…): Replying to [comment:2 ryandesign@…]:
Since you are using "`use_configure no`" you need to ensure you're UsingTheRightCompiler and `-arch` flags and add a universal variant if possible. Done.
We don't want to create new variants with names beginning with "no_"
anymore. Why is the functionality offered in the no_rename variant required? You might consider instead always installing the program with its normal name, but in a nonstandard directory like ${prefix}/libexec/${name} that wouldn't be in the user's $PATH. Swapped the variant and the default behavior so it no longer begins with "no_", and made the "rename" variant a default. I want the tool to be in the user's $PATH because that at least makes it easier for me personally with my other portfiles I'm working on.
Is this really version 0.0.3 or did you just make that up? If the
latter, consider using a version number made up of the release date instead, i.e. 20121004. Put the version number after the `svn.revision` to make it more clear how I was getting it. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/38306#comment:3> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X
#38306: New port: osxbom -------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: egall@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: submission | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.1.3 Resolution: | Keywords: Port: osxbom | -------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment (by larryv@…): Replying to [comment:3 egall@…]:
Is this really version 0.0.3 or did you just make that up? Put the version number after the `svn.revision` to make it more clear how I was getting it.
In other words, you made it up. If you want to base the version off of the Subversion revision, just use svn.revision. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/38306#comment:4> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X
#38306: New port: osxbom -------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: egall@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: submission | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.1.3 Resolution: | Keywords: Port: osxbom | -------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment (by larryv@…): What would be the benefit of adding this port, anyway? -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/38306#comment:5> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X
#38306: New port: osxbom -------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: egall@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: submission | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.1.3 Resolution: | Keywords: Port: osxbom | -------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment (by egall@…): Replying to [comment:5 larryv@…]:
What would be the benefit of adding this port, anyway?
It's progress towards the goal of MacPorts being entirely self-hosting some day. It's also useful for PureDarwin and other platforms that don't have an `lsbom`. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/38306#comment:6> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X
participants (1)
-
MacPorts