On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 04:55:50PM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote: > On Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:25:13PM -0400, Brad Smith wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 05:33:03PM -0400, Brad Smith wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 09:20:13PM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote: > > > > Hey ports@, > > > > > > > > here is the UPDATE from 2.2.0 to 2.4.0 with -python. It need tests and > > > > reviews. Tested on amd64. We need to build it on i386. > > > > > > > > https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/tree/master/graphics/opencv > > > > > > > > Cheers, Rafael > > > > > > An updated diff with some tweaks.. > > > > > > - tweaked the Python COMMNENT > > > - removed REVISION > > > - SEPARATE_BUILD only takes Yes for an option now > > > - fixes for the FFmpeg backend, without the previous patch that was in > > > the port being brought over to the new file where the equivalent code > > > is this would not have built on i386 > > > > > > I don't use OpenCV and I was just taking a look at the FFmpeg backend. > > > What about share/opencv vs share/OpenCV and using share/opencv > > > consistently? > > > > Here is an updated diff. > > > > The Python sub-package was all broken. Also garbage collected > > USE_LIBTOOL since the port is using CMake. > > > > Hey Brad, > > really thank you for review, update and comments. It is totally clear > I still have a lot to learn. It was my first attempt to create a > multi-package. > > I tested it on amd64 and all looks fine. > > cheers, Rafael
If you could take a look at the issue I mentioned above about share/opencv vs share/OpenCV then this looks like it would be good to go. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
