Opened 8 years ago

Closed 7 years ago

#33194 closed submission (fixed)

NEW: py-etsdevtools

Reported by: petrus.hyvonen@… Owned by: macports-tickets@…
Priority: Normal Milestone:
Component: ports Version:
Keywords: Cc: jjstickel (Jonathan Stickel)
Port: py-etsdevtools

Description

the Enthought Tool Suit package etsdevtools

Attachments (1)

Portfile (1.3 KB) - added by petrus.hyvonen@… 8 years ago.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (7)

Changed 8 years ago by petrus.hyvonen@…

Attachment: Portfile added

comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by mf2k (Frank Schima)

Port: py-etsdevtools added
Version: 2.0.3

Thanks for submitting this as a unified python port. A few comments:

  1. Change the sha1 checksum to sha256 and remove the md5 checksum.
  2. Please determine and add the license field.

comment:2 in reply to:  1 ; Changed 8 years ago by jjstickel (Jonathan Stickel)

Replying to macsforever2000@…:

  1. Change the sha1 checksum to sha256 and remove the md5 checksum.

Running

sudo port -v checksum [portname]

still gives md5, sha1, and rmd160. If developers now prefer sha256, it would be helpful if this could be part of the output of "port -v checksum..." Thanks.

comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by jjstickel (Jonathan Stickel)

Here is a link to the license file for etsdevtools: https://github.com/enthought/etsdevtools/blob/master/LICENSE.txt. It looks to be identical for all the enthought packages. Should we use "Enthought" for the license field?

comment:4 in reply to:  3 Changed 8 years ago by drkp (Dan Ports)

Replying to jjstickel@…:

Here is a link to the license file for etsdevtools: https://github.com/enthought/etsdevtools/blob/master/LICENSE.txt. It looks to be identical for all the enthought packages. Should we use "Enthought" for the license field?

That looks like a standard 3-clause BSD license to me (so "BSD")

comment:5 in reply to:  2 Changed 7 years ago by jmroot (Joshua Root)

Replying to jjstickel@…:

If developers now prefer sha256, it would be helpful if this could be part of the output of "port -v checksum..." Thanks.

It does suggest sha256 if no checksums are set. Using other checksum types is not wrong, so complaining about them would not be correct. Really any combination apart from md5 alone is fine. If upstream only provides certain checksum types for their downloads, using those in the portfile is OK and expected.

comment:6 Changed 7 years ago by jmroot (Joshua Root)

Resolution: fixed
Status: newclosed
Summary: py-etsdevtoolsNEW: py-etsdevtools
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.