py-gwpy @0.1a10 new port submission

[duncanmmacleod (Duncan Macleod)]

This ticket requests the creation of a new port py-gwpy for the GWpy python module (​https://gwpy.github.io, ​https://pypi.python.org/pypi/gwpy).

The Portfile for submission is attached and has been check with port lint.

[lpsinger (Leo Singer)]

Cc Me!

[lpsinger (Leo Singer)]

CCing Adam.

Duncan, this Portfile looks pretty straightforward. Nice job. A few comments:

• Usually the Portfiles themselves do not bear copyright statements. I'm not sure if it is a problem for MacPorts or not. The package's Python code presumably bears its own copyright statement.
• Consider adding openmaintainer to the maintainers list so that committers are permitted to make minor changes to your port (such as updating to new versions).

[lpsinger (Leo Singer)]

Oh, and why the non-numeric version number (0.lal0)?

[duncanmmacleod (Duncan Macleod)]

Yes, the code has its own licensing and copyright statements, I can easily remove that from the Portfile if its the standard procedure.

Currently there are no other developers of the GWpy source, so I will leave the maintainer to me for now, if that makes sense.

As for the version number, this is an alpha pre-release of version 0.1, hence 0.1a10. Once I get to a stable 0.1 release, the aX suffix will be removed.

[lpsinger (Leo Singer)]

Replying to duncanmmacleod@…:

Currently there are no other developers of the GWpy source, so I will leave the maintainer to me for now, if that makes sense.

The maintainer field lists the individuals who are responsible for keeping the Portfie up to date, not the upstream authors. Please see ​https://guide.macports.org/#project.update-policies.nonmaintainer.

[skymoo (Adam Mercer)]

Replying to duncanmmacleod@…:

As for the version number, this is an alpha pre-release of version 0.1, hence 0.1a10. Once I get to a stable 0.1 release, the aX suffix will be removed.

I believe the MacPorts version comparison algorithm will consider 0.1a10 to be newer than 0.1 so using that scheme may cause problems.

What would happen if nds2-client and lalframe are already installed, but the +nds2 and +gwf variants are not specified? From looking at the Portfile there is nothing to disable support for these features if the variants are not requested but the nds2-client and lalframe ports are already present. As I see it there are two ways to resolve this:

1. Make these non-optional features
2. Make sure the nds2 and gwf code is not built unless the appropriate variants are specified.

[larryv (Lawrence Velázquez)]

Replying to ram@…:

I believe the MacPorts version comparison algorithm will consider 0.1a10 to be newer than 0.1 so using that scheme may cause problems.

The epoch could easily be incremented when the suffix is removed. The focus should be on making it clear which version of the software we are providing; if “0.1a10” is the upstream version number, then that’s the number we should use.

[skymoo (Adam Mercer)]

Replying to larryv@…:

The epoch could easily be incremented when the suffix is removed. The focus should be on making it clear which version of the software we are providing; if “0.1a10” is the upstream version number, then that’s the number we should use.

Yep, I just try to avoid bumping epoch whenever possible. I guess the real problem here is that we don't have a way to specify that a version is a pre-release, essentially we need something like ~ in Debian: ​https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Version

[petrrr]

Cc Me!

[duncanmmacleod (Duncan Macleod)]

Replying to larryv@…:

Replying to ram@…:

I believe the MacPorts version comparison algorithm will consider 0.1a10 to be newer than 0.1 so using that scheme may cause problems.

The epoch could easily be incremented when the suffix is removed. The focus should be on making it clear which version of the software we are providing; if “0.1a10” is the upstream version number, then that’s the number we should use.

I've updated the attached Portfile to represent the 0.1 version of GWpy, which was just uploaded. Can @ram, or others please take a second look at this submission?

[mf2k (Frank Schima)]

Some comments:

1. Remove all the excessive blank and dashed comment lines. No other Portfile does that. In fact all of the comments can be removed except for the first 2 lines.
2. Remove the Copyright or else we cannot modify this port without your permission. Again, this is not how we do things in Portfiles.
3. The hdf5 variant cannot depend on "py-h5py" but must choose a specific version. Move the variant into the subports block and use syntax like you did for port:py${python.version}-scipy.
4. Your maintainers email should match your Trac email or else any future patches you submit are likely to get held up.
5. As asked previously, can openmaintainer be added?

[duncanmmacleod (Duncan Macleod)]

Replying to mf2k@…:

Some comments:

1. Remove all the excessive blank and dashed comment lines. No other Portfile does that. In fact all of the comments can be removed except for the first 2 lines.

Done

1. Remove the Copyright or else we cannot modify this port without your permission. Again, this is not how we do things in Portfiles.

Done

1. The hdf5 variant cannot depend on "py-h5py" but must choose a specific version. Move the variant into the subports block and use syntax like you did for port:py${python.version}-scipy.

Done

1. Your maintainers email should match your Trac email or else any future patches you submit are likely to get held up.

I don't have a trac email, how can I get one?

1. As asked previously, can openmaintainer be added?

Done.

[mf2k (Frank Schima)]

Replying to duncanmmacleod@…:

I don't have a trac email, how can I get one?

It's the same one you are using to post your Portfile and comment. Your duncanmmacleod gmail.

[duncanmmacleod (Duncan Macleod)]

Replying to mf2k@…:

Replying to duncanmmacleod@…:

I don't have a trac email, how can I get one?

It's the same one you are using to post your Portfile and comment. Your duncanmmacleod gmail.

I updated the Portfile. I would rather use my ligo.org email address for this Port, and apparently I already have a trac account in that name, how can I move the ticket from one to the other? Or, is it worth just reposting the ticket with the right email?

[mf2k (Frank Schima)]

Thanks. The ticket is fine as is. This only matters for future tickets.

[mf2k (Frank Schima)]

Note that "gmail:duncanmmacleod" is not valid. I assume you mean "gmail.com:duncanmmacleod"?

[duncanmmacleod (Duncan Macleod)]

Replying to mf2k@…:

Thanks. The ticket is fine as is. This only matters for future tickets.

Not sure what you mean, presumably I have the Portfile include whatever email address I want to use in the future, rather than the one on this ticket? And yes, I messed up the email formatting in the Portfile itself.

[mf2k (Frank Schima)]

I'm saying the Portfile email is not valid. Please read about obfuscated email format in the ​guide.

[duncanmmacleod (Duncan Macleod)]

Replying to mf2k@…:

I'm saying the Portfile email is not valid. Please read about obfuscated email format in the ​guide.

Yes, I got that, sorry I was replying to your previous post. If I want to use a different email address than the one used in this ticket (duncanmmacleod@…), presumably I should include that in the Portfile, then just make sure to use that for all future tickets?

[mf2k (Frank Schima)]

Yes exactly.

[duncanmmacleod (Duncan Macleod)]

v0.1 Portfile

[duncanmmacleod (Duncan Macleod)]

Replying to mf2k@…:

Yes exactly.

Ok, confusion over. I think I've updated everything mentioned so far, anything else?

[lpsinger (Leo Singer)]

Adam, why is it glue and not py-glue?

[duncanmmacleod (Duncan Macleod)]

This submission has been replaced by ​https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/1233.