Ticket #29152 (closed update: fixed)
Updated gprolog-devel portfile
| Reported by: | pmoura@… | Owned by: | macports-tickets@… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | ports | Version: | |
| Keywords: | haspatch maintainer | Cc: | ryandesign@… |
| Port: | gprolog-devel |
Description
Updated gprolog-devel portfile (2011/04/08 beta version).
Attachments
Change History
comment:1 follow-up: ↓ 3 Changed 2 years ago by jmr@…
- Priority changed from High to Normal
- Version 1.9.2 deleted
As per the ticket guidelines, the High priority is reserved for the use of MacPorts team members.
comment:2 follow-up: ↓ 4 Changed 2 years ago by ryandesign@…
Supersedes #28608.
You haven't updated the version or revision field, so users would not be made aware of this update. Probably the YYYYMMDD string you're using in distname should be part of the version field.
comment:3 in reply to: ↑ 1 Changed 2 years ago by pmoura@…
Replying to jmr@…:
As per the ticket guidelines, the High priority is reserved for the use of MacPorts team members.
I know. But given that previous updated to this port were still pending, I decided to try this trick to draw your attention ;-) It seems to have worked.
comment:4 in reply to: ↑ 2 Changed 2 years ago by pmoura@…
Replying to ryandesign@…:
Supersedes #28608.
You haven't updated the version or revision field, so users would not be made aware of this update. Probably the YYYYMMDD string you're using in distname should be part of the version field.
Updated the version field doesn't sound right. This is a port for the beta versions of GNU Prolog. Currently, beta versions for 1.4.0. I guess we could add a revision field but there isn't one on the current committed portfile.
comment:5 follow-up: ↓ 6 Changed 2 years ago by ryandesign@…
Replying to pmoura@…:
I know. But given that previous updated to this port were still pending, I decided to try this trick to draw your attention ;-) It seems to have worked.
I just happened to see your ticket this time.
Replying to pmoura@…:
Updated the version field doesn't sound right.
Yes, it does. Compare with ports graphviz-devel, minivmac-devel, gcc46, etc. I've attached a proposed patch. See what you think.
This is a port for the beta versions of GNU Prolog. Currently, beta versions for 1.4.0.
Exactly. A beta version. Not a final version. This version of the port is not version 1.4.0. Neither was the previous version of the port which is currently in the repository. Version 1.4.0 of this software does not exist yet. So the port should not claim to be at that nonexistent version of the software.
I guess we could add a revision field but there isn't one on the current committed portfile.
The revision line is supposed to be for the maintainer to make changes to the packaging which are independent of upstream changes.
comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 5 ; follow-up: ↓ 7 Changed 2 years ago by ryandesign@…
Replying to ryandesign@…:
I've attached a proposed patch. See what you think.
In this patch, I set the version to 1.4.0-20110408. It might be preferable to set the version to just 20110408, since that matches the upstream distfile name; this would make it possible to create a livecheck for this port.
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 Changed 2 years ago by pmoura@…
Replying to ryandesign@…:
Replying to ryandesign@…:
I've attached a proposed patch. See what you think.
In this patch, I set the version to 1.4.0-20110408. It might be preferable to set the version to just 20110408, since that matches the upstream distfile name; this would make it possible to create a livecheck for this port.
Your diff looks fine to me. I agree that setting the version to just 20110408 in order to allow for livecheck is a good idea.