Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
#43876 closed update (fixed)
Request to update port 'whizard'
| Reported by: | Romendakil | Owned by: | whizard@… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | ports | Version: | |
| Keywords: | haspatch | Cc: | |
| Port: | whizard |
Description
The software 'whizard' has been update to version 2.2.0. The unified diff of the Portfiles is attached.
Attachments (2)
Change History (11)
Changed 10 years ago by Romendakil
| Attachment: | Portfile-whizard.diff added |
|---|
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by mf2k (Frank Schima)
| Cc: | juergen.reuter@… removed |
|---|---|
| Keywords: | port update removed |
| Version: | 2.3.0 |
Thanks. As reporter you are automatically Cc'ed.
The new gcc48 and gcc49 variants in your patch depend on gcc47 when they should instead depend on gcc48 and gcc49. Also, instead of replacing the gcc45 and gcc46 variants, those variants should be retained.
Changed 10 years ago by Romendakil
| Attachment: | Portfile-whizard.2.diff added |
|---|
Corrected data in the Portfile diff
comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by Romendakil
Oops, this was a cut-and-paste typo with the 4.7/8/9 versions of gcc. Concerning, the gcc45 and gcc46 variants, they have to vanish from the portfile, as our code is no longer maintained for these legacy versions of gcc and does not compile with them. We demand gcc >= 4.7.1 for our code.
comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by mf2k (Frank Schima)
| Keywords: | haspatch added |
|---|---|
| Owner: | changed from macports-tickets@… to whizard@… |
OK. Also, in the future, please Cc the port maintainers (port info --maintainers whizard) so we can get approval to commit.
comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by Romendakil
Ok, sorry about the confusion. whizard@… (or shorter whizard@…) is a functional email account maintained by myself (Juergen Reuter) that is also forwarded to the rest of the WHIZARD team members.
comment:6 follow-up: 7 Changed 10 years ago by mf2k (Frank Schima)
That is confusing and we committers have no way to really know that. I think we need to at least add your email address to the list of maintainers so that when you submit patches, we aren't waiting a period time for approval that will never come. If a known maintainer attaches a valid patch, it can be applied immediately.
comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by Romendakil
Replying to mf2k@…:
That is confusing and we committers have no way to really know that. I think we need to at least add your email address to the list of maintainers so that when you submit patches, we aren't waiting a period time for approval that will never come. If a known maintainer attaches a valid patch, it can be applied immediately.
Fair enough. Could you add this right away, or do I have to provide a new patch file!?
comment:8 Changed 10 years ago by mf2k (Frank Schima)
No further patch is required. I'm very busy today and I'll get to it as soon as I can.
comment:9 Changed 10 years ago by mf2k (Frank Schima)
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
unified diff for the Portfiles.