Hi Stefan -- On 3/13/2022 11:46 AM, Stefan Hagen wrote: > Brian Callahan wrote (2022-03-13 16:17 CET): >> Hi Stefan -- >> >> On 3/13/2022 7:49 AM, Stefan Hagen wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> cat DESCR >>> Twmn is a dmenu style desktop notification system. >>> >>> Notifications are shown in a one-line bar called the notification slide. >>> They can be navigated through and activated with shortcuts. >>> >>> * twmnc: is a command line tool to send notifications to twmnd. >>> * twmnd: is a daemon listening to notification requests and showing them >>> one after another. It is also compatible with "notify-send". >>> >>> Tested on amd64. An example config can be found in the README.md in the >>> examples dir. >>> >>> OK? Comments? >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Stefan >> >> Only lightly tested and seems to work OK. >> Some thoughts: >> >> Your distinfo is incomplete: >> SHA256 (-58ca77dd.tar.gz) = WNLEjHKQVRgjINQeG889W0T9NayCyVgh0Mj8tjZvthc= > > Indeed. op@ poked me already about it. > >> You put GPLv3+ as the license but the repo LICENSE is a copy of the >> LGPLv3. I don't see anywhere that says you can use LGPLv3+, so I think >> the license marker should be LGPLv3 only. > > You're right. I missed the "L" and grepped for "or later", which is > mentioned in the license text, but only as explanation. I need to be more > careful with that. > >> NO_TEST = Yes is probably needed: >> ===> Regression tests for twmn-0.0.0.1 >> make: don't know how to make test >> Stop in >> /usr/ports/pobj/twmn-0.0.0.1/twmn-58ca77dde5a007ef0edb7c6e2312310adaf68c7d/build-amd64 > > Afaik we don't set it for non-existing tests, so they get picked up > automatically once they appear. Am I wrong? >
I just went through the port files again in case I missed something. There is indeed a test target. It's named check. However, this check target is broken... >> There are -Werror flags building twmnd, those should go. > > Attached again, still without NO_TEST, but the fixed license and distinfo. > > Best Regards, > Stefan One other thing I noticed since I was already looking--twmnc and twmnd both report themselves as version 1.2. I wonder if it would be better to version the package as 1.2pl<date> or something similar to reflect the fact that upstream is versioning their utility, even they don't actually make tagged releases. ~Brian
