syck 0.70 changes to point to current canonical syck library

[apinstein@…]

Since why bailed on syck it looks like it's been taken over by this guy:

​http://github.com/indeyets/syck

See: ​http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2009-September/057243.html

The 0.55 port won't build on 10.6/64-bit. We were able to easily update the portfile to use the 0.70 release from indeyets' site.

Just update master_sites to ​http://github.com/indeyets/syck/downloads and update the checksum desired for this file: ​http://github.com/downloads/indeyets/syck/syck-0.70.tar.gz

Update the port's version to 0.70 and everything compiled great and worked for us.

I don't know of any better way to "confirm" that this is the official new home for syck.

[jmr@…]

Please remember to fill in the Port field and cc the maintainer.

[drew@…]

I'll second the request for the syck port to be updated to 0.70.

The new home for syck does appear to be on GitHub: ​http://github.com/indeyets/syck

[adamdoupe@…]

Patch to upgrade portfile to version .70

[adamdoupe@…]

Cc Me!

[apinstein@…]

gah... I just upgraded another box to 10.6 and had this issue (which I reported 10 months ago) and it still isn't fixed in Macports! And subsequently just wasted another 2 hours of my life re-finding this bug.

What is the process for taking over ownership of the syck portfile so that I can commit the patch?

[jmr@…]

The procedure to follow for abandoned ports is laid out in the Guide. But in this case it's only been 35 minutes since a patch was provided…

[and.damore@…]

Replying to adamdoupe@…:

Don't diff the $Id$ line too when creating patch file.

The patch isn't building on my system, I'm attaching output and will check into it later.

[and.damore@…]

Cc Me!

[and.damore@…]

Seems the build error was due to parallel build, I disabled it and committed the patch in r76528.

[apinstein@…]

Excellent, thanks!