Opened 12 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
#33569 closed update (fixed)
tcl_bonjour @1.0 version update to 1.1
| Reported by: | blair@… | Owned by: | ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | ports | Version: | 2.0.4 |
| Keywords: | maintainer haspatch | Cc: | |
| Port: | tcl_bonjour |
Description
I am submitting a Portfile change to update the tcl_bonjour package to its latest upstream version of 1.1. The new Portfile and version were tested against Macports version 2.0.4.
Attachments (2)
Change History (5)
Changed 12 years ago by blair@…
comment:1 Changed 12 years ago by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)
| Keywords: | maintainer haspatch added |
|---|---|
| Owner: | changed from macports-tickets@… to ryandesign@… |
| Status: | new → assigned |
Thanks. In the future please supply a unified diff instead of a complete new portfile; it'll make it easier for us to review your proposed changes.
What is the relationship between this project and your site http://the-blair.com/sw/tcl_bonjour/ ? Are you a developer of this software? Or are you just repackaging their software and hosting it on your site? I checked the official tarball on github and there appears no difference between it and yours, except for the name of the directory it extracts into, so why don't we just use the one from github? The MacPorts github portgroup makes this easy. I'm attaching a revised proposal. What do you think?
Changed 12 years ago by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)
| Attachment: | tcl_bonjour-1.1.diff added |
|---|
revised proposal
comment:2 Changed 12 years ago by blair@…
With regards to supplying a unified diff, will do.
As for your revised proposal, I like it. I am the developer and was hosting packages on my own site. When I first submitted this project, I don't think the PortGroup feature existed. I'd just as soon pull the official tar ball from github (one less thing for me to maintain).
Thanks!
comment:3 Changed 12 years ago by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | assigned → closed |
Yes, I didn't create the github portgroup until recently, but I was seeing a lot of people either avoiding github distfiles (because of the unpredictable directory names) or adding lots of code to each portfile to handle it. And that's what portgroups are for: hiding away commonly used functionality in a sort of include file that any port can use. I've updated the port with my patch in r90619.
Portfile referencing v1.1