Hi, Am Freitag, März 09, 2018 10:54 CET, Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> schrieb:
> On 2018/03/09 01:59, Klemens Nanni wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 11:23:52AM +0100, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote: > > > Index: Makefile > > > =================================================================== > > > RCS file: /cvs/ports/www/sogo/Makefile,v > > > retrieving revision 1.74 > > > diff -u -r1.74 Makefile > > > --- Makefile 11 Jan 2018 19:27:12 -0000 1.74 > > > +++ Makefile 8 Mar 2018 09:46:46 -0000 > > > @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ > > > > > > COMMENT = web based groupware server > > > > > > -VERSION = 3.2.10 > > > +VERSION = 4.0.0 > > > DISTNAME = SOGo-${VERSION} > > > PKGNAME = sogo-${VERSION} > > > REVISION = 1 > > Zap REVISION. > > > > > SHARED_LIBS += GDLContentStore 3.0 > > > -SHARED_LIBS += NGCards 3.0 > > > -SHARED_LIBS += SOGo 4.1 > > > -SHARED_LIBS += SOGoUI 2.1 > > > +SHARED_LIBS += NGCards 3.1 > > > +SHARED_LIBS += SOGo 5.0 > > > +SHARED_LIBS += SOGoUI 2.2 > > > > > > CATEGORIES = www > > > HOMEPAGE = http://www.sogo.nu/ > > https://sogo.nu works. > > > > > @@ -72,8 +72,14 @@ > > > ${WRKSRC}/Scripts/sql-update-2.2.17_to_2.3.0.sh \ > > > ${PREFIX}/share/doc/sogo/sql-update-2.2.17_to_2.3.0-postgres.sh > > > ${INSTALL_SCRIPT} -c -o ${SHAREOWN} -g ${SHAREGRP} \ > > > + ${WRKSRC}/Scripts/sql-update-3.2.10_to_4.0.0.sh \ > > > + ${PREFIX}/share/doc/sogo/sql-update-3.2.10_to_4.0.0-postgres.sh > > > + ${INSTALL_SCRIPT} -c -o ${SHAREOWN} -g ${SHAREGRP} \ > > > ${WRKSRC}/Scripts/sql-update-2.2.17_to_2.3.0-mysql.sh \ > > > ${PREFIX}/share/doc/sogo/sql-update-2.2.17_to_2.3.0-mysql.sh > > > + ${INSTALL_SCRIPT} -c -o ${SHAREOWN} -g ${SHAREGRP} \ > > > + ${WRKSRC}/Scripts/sql-update-3.2.10_to_4.0.0-mysql.sh \ > > > + ${PREFIX}/share/doc/sogo/sql-update-3.2.10_to_4.0.0-mysql.sh > > > ${INSTALL_SCRIPT} -c -o ${SHAREOWN} -g ${SHAREGRP} \ > > > ${WRKSRC}/Scripts/sql-update-3.0.0-to-combined.sh \ > > > ${PREFIX}/share/doc/sogo/sql-update-3.0.0-to-combined.sh > > I'd really simplify these into a loop to shorten the target and ease > > reading: > > > > .for _s in ... > > ${INSTALL_SCRIPT} ... \ > > ${WRKSRC}/Scripts/..${_s}.. \ > > ${PREFIX}/share/doc/sogo/..${_s}.. > > .endfor > > Wouldn't it be better to use upstream's standard names? Then a simple > wildcard works, it matches their usual setup, and you don't have the > inconsistency you have here where some files are renamed with > -postgres and others aren't. yeah, with the loop in my updated version, I use the standard names, and I dropped some legacy scripts. > > > > RCS file: patches/patch-Scripts_sql-update-3_2_10_to_4_0_0-mysql_sh > > > diff -N patches/patch-Scripts_sql-update-3_2_10_to_4_0_0-mysql_sh > > > --- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000 > > > +++ patches/patch-Scripts_sql-update-3_2_10_to_4_0_0-mysql_sh 8 Mar > > > 2018 09:46:46 -0000 > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ > > > +$OpenBSD$ > > > + > > > +Index: Scripts/sql-update-3.2.10_to_4.0.0-mysql.sh > > > +--- Scripts/sql-update-3.2.10_to_4.0.0-mysql.sh.orig > > > ++++ Scripts/sql-update-3.2.10_to_4.0.0-mysql.sh > > > +@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ > > > +-#!/bin/bash > > > ++#!/bin/sh > > Does the script work with our ksh? > > I don't think so. > > read -p "Username ($defaultusername): " username > read -p "Hostname ($defaulthostname): " hostname > read -p "Database ($defaultdatabase): " database > > bash: > > -p prompt > Display prompt on standard error, without a trailing newline, before > attempting to read any input. The prompt is displayed only if input > is coming from a terminal. > > ksh: > > The -un and -p options cause input to be read from file descriptor > n > (n defaults to 0 if omitted) or the current co-process (see Co- > processes above for comments on this), respectively. If the -s > option is used, input is saved to the history file. > > > > # su _sogo "${TRUEPREFIX}/bin/bash > > > ${TRUEPREFIX}/share/doc/sogo/sql-update-3.0.0-to-combined.sh" > > > # su _sogo "${TRUEPREFIX}/bin/bash > > > ${TRUEPREFIX}/share/doc/sogo/sql-update-3.0.0-to-combined-mysql.sh" > > bash is already missing from RUN_DEPENDS, I wonder if users tried to run > > that instruction but failed. > > I would have a good look at the sed invocations in that file and make sure > they don't rely on anything from GNU sed. >