Dmitry Marakasov píše v pá 21. 08. 2009 v 22:12 +0400:
> Which also worries me is that I'm going out of city till monday -
> will it be OK to commit the patch this night? Well, it shouldn't
> break anything not yet broken, but still. If it's ok, I'll commit
> it in ~6hrs after finishing manual wor
* Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> Once you have a patch, send it over for eyeball-review and approval.
> Thanks for attacking this!
I've processed 321 of 418 ports. There are some casualities, namely:
- all octave-forge-* ports. These now require different subdirectories (see
[1]):
* Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> > [1] http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/sfp.patch
> > [2] http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/sfp.log
>
> This looks good so far.
>
> > PS. Btw, SOURCEFORGE_EXTENDED and SOURCEFORGE_JP still use an old
> > scheme. Because of that SFE can no longer includ
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:06:18 +0200
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Dmitry Marakasov píše v pá 21. 08. 2009 v 07:50 +0400:
>
> > [1] http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/sfp.patch
> > [2] http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/sfp.log
>
> This looks good so far.
>
> > PS. Btw, SOURCEFORGE_EXTENDED and SOURCEFOR
Dmitry Marakasov píše v pá 21. 08. 2009 v 07:50 +0400:
> [1] http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/sfp.patch
> [2] http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/sfp.log
This looks good so far.
> PS. Btw, SOURCEFORGE_EXTENDED and SOURCEFORGE_JP still use an old
> scheme. Because of that SFE can no longer include
* Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> > > I've been following this discussion closely since several of my ports
> > > fetch
> > > from Sourceforge. Is it safe to assume that some global solution will be
> > > applied to the ports tree? Or are we maintainers going to need to submit
> >
Dmitry Marakasov píše v čt 20. 08. 2009 v 20:40 +0400:
> * Paul Schmehl (pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com) wrote:
>
> > I've been following this discussion closely since several of my ports fetch
> > from Sourceforge. Is it safe to assume that some global solution will be
> > applied to the ports tree?
* Paul Schmehl (pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com) wrote:
> I've been following this discussion closely since several of my ports fetch
> from Sourceforge. Is it safe to assume that some global solution will be
> applied to the ports tree? Or are we maintainers going to need to submit PRs
> for affect
--On Wednesday, August 19, 2009 23:08:04 -0500 "Philip M. Gollucci"
wrote:
Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
[1] http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/sf.pl.txt
Awesome.
Rewriting this:
my $portname = `make -VPORTNAME`;
chomp $portname;
my $portname_lc = lc($portname);
my $portversion = `make -VPORTVER
* Philip M. Gollucci (pgollu...@p6m7g8.com) wrote:
> Rewriting this:
> my $portname = `make -VPORTNAME`;
> chomp $portname;
> my $portname_lc = lc($portname);
>
> my $portversion = `make -VPORTVERSION`;
> chomp $portversion;
>
> Like this, will help substantially by reducing make spawns by 1/2,
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> my @lines = lc `make -V PORTNAME -V PORTVERSION`;
oops
my @lines = map { chomp; lc } \
split /\n/, `make -V PORTNAME -V PORTVERSION`;
*sigh*
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B
Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> [1] http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/sf.pl.txt
Awesome.
Rewriting this:
my $portname = `make -VPORTNAME`;
chomp $portname;
my $portname_lc = lc($portname);
my $portversion = `make -VPORTVERSION`;
chomp $portversion;
Like this, will help substantially by reducing make s
12 matches
Mail list logo
