new port: hercules-devel

[benoit.triquet@…]

Please find a new port for the devel branch of Hercules, currently named 4.00. "port lint" is clean, otool -L does not find dependencies outside hercules-devel and /usr/lib.

Other changes to the Portfile vs. the 3.10 update I just posted:

• added a conflict with hercules
• upstream does not have a tarball so fetch from git and since they don't have any tag, use the current head - probably not smart so if you want to freeze the revision used for the build, know that the head i used was fdff4512ae71d3eb8991357100909e1e3b3f660b from july the 26th and that worked fine
• autotools have to be invoked manually

[benoit.triquet@…]

Also, isn't it misleading to use the upstream candidate version number "4.00" ? In debian they would probably append the snapshot date or git hash somehow.

[larryv (Lawrence Velázquez)]

Replying to benoit.triquet@…:

Also, isn't it misleading to use the upstream candidate version number "4.00" ? In debian they would probably append the snapshot date or git hash somehow.

Yes, we usually do something similar. (See the gcc410 and clang-3.5 ports, for example.)

[benoit.triquet@…]

Replying to larryv@…:

Replying to benoit.triquet@…:

Also, isn't it misleading to use the upstream candidate version number "4.00" ? In debian they would probably append the snapshot date or git hash somehow.

Yes, we usually do something similar. (See the gcc410 and clang-3.5 ports, for example.)

Thanks. gcc410 uses a date, clang-3.5 an svn rev number which like mercurial increases monotonically and I guess that's a requirement so actually the git hash won't do. I inspected a number of git-based portfiles, all seemed to fetch a specific commit or tag so I guess a 4.00-HEAD portfile that builds whatever is the upstream head at the time a user installs the port, is not a good idea.

I just rebuild from HEAD, I am updating my proposed portfile to that known-good commit hash.

[benoit.triquet@…]

portfile based on git commit hash and date

[SickTeddyBear]

Cc Me!

[chrstphrchvz (Christopher Chavez)]

Over 4 years have passed without this submission getting accepted, so I don't think having a hercules-devel port will be a good idea. The better thing to focus on would be long-outstanding issues with the non-devel hercules port (#44582, #54329).

[oseiberts11 (O Seibert Syseleven)]

I think it is about time to create a port for Hercules 4 (Hyperion) (SoftDevLabs) version after all these years. ​https://github.com/SDL-Hercules-390/hyperion It does have actual releases. Version 3 of Hercules is really really really old.