Ticket #26717 (new submission)
tint2 @0.11 Submission
| Reported by: | pope@… | Owned by: | macports-tickets@… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | ports | Version: | 1.9.1 |
| Keywords: | tint2 panel taskbar x11 | Cc: | |
| Port: | tint2 |
Description
tint2 is a simple taskbar/panel for X11.
Attachments
Change History
comment:3 follow-up: ↓ 4 Changed 3 years ago by ryandesign@…
The cairo, pango and glib2 dependencies should be rewritten to allow their -devel counterparts to satisfy them. See any other port that depends on cairo, pango or glib2 for an example. In fact, the cairo and glib2 dependencies can probably be dropped since pango already depends on them. The same may be true for some of the xorg dependencies.
The "revision 0" line can be dropped.
Where did the patchfile come from?
comment:4 in reply to: ↑ 3 Changed 3 years ago by pope@…
Replying to ryandesign@…:
The cairo, pango and glib2 dependencies should be rewritten to allow their -devel counterparts to satisfy them. See any other port that depends on cairo, pango or glib2 for an example. In fact, the cairo and glib2 dependencies can probably be dropped since pango already depends on them. The same may be true for some of the xorg dependencies.
The "revision 0" line can be dropped.
Where did the patchfile come from?
I will look at allowing the -devel counterparts to satisfy cairo, pango, and glib2.
As far as the patchfile, that was something that is using code from http://code.google.com/p/le-depotoir/source/browse/trunk/misc/clock_gettime_stub.c. I didn't notice the copyright when i was trying to make this work. What is the normal procedure for handling code from the BSD license into patches like this?
comment:5 Changed 3 years ago by ryandesign@…
My concern with the patchfile was not licensing (though that's a reasonable concern too), but rather that we generally want to provide the same software the developer provided. If the software the developer provided does not work (either at all or specifically on the Mac) and patches are needed, we would of course want those patches sent back to the developer for incorporation into the next version; I wanted to know whether that was the case here. Or sometimes the developer will already have fixed some problem in their repository, and we will want to take that fix as a patchfile before the next version is ready.
With third-party modifications that are not incorporated upstream, we would want to fully understand why upstream has not incorporated that code before considering including it in MacPorts.