On 2026/09/10 16:42, Chris Billington wrote: > +EXTRACT_SUFX = .tar.gz
not needed, this is the default > +SHA256 (3b12bc579b99932e3fe307ea1e44b8c1c6d1d5c9.tar.gz) = > 8F0xFe9bimf51zwRpZdy3EKaUdcFCZ1vuUFOq5VLb1g= not a valid filename for distfiles the patch to PLIST doesn't fully apply: Hunk #22 failed at 1981. 1 out of 124 hunks failed--saving rejects to pkg/PLIST.rej On 2026/09/10 03:07, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: > Chris Billington writes: > > - upstream uses git submodules for pugixml, SingleApplication, and the > > 'elements' library. I have used the same pinned revisions in > > SITES.xxx/DISTFILES.xxx as the upstream branch. > > DIST_TUPLE would be a better fit for this. yes, that would fix the 3b12bc5... filename too. (btw you can use GH_* for the main file and DIST_TUPLE for submodules; portroach is likely to cope better with that) > > - The 'elements' user-submitted library (CC-BY-SA 3.0) is pinned against > > a 9-month-old commit of the submodule repo. > > Is it permissible to use a recent commit instead, since that would still > > make a reproducible build but would include more recent items? > > If doing so provides value and doesn't introduce incompatibility, then > sure. agreed (in many cases there is a reason why upstream pins a particular version, in some other cases there isn't, so do check) > > - portcheck notes 3 Makefile lines longer than 80 chars, but it's not > > easy to break them without sacrificing readability. Is that acceptable? > > Yes. >
