Hi Alessandro --
On 07/29/18 07:58, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
Gentle reminder.
I need a feedback on this port, because I would like to submit soon at
least other two Qflow's tools for which I have wip ports (and that
depend on abc).
Ports move at the speed at which they move. This is all best-effort and
we do the best we can. No one can give you a time-table on things.
With that said, barring some stylistic tweaks that I will take care of,
this is ok for me. So if another developer is willing to give me an ok,
I'll import it.
~Brian
On 07/28/18 09:43, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
Hello Brian,
On 07/28/18 03:29, Brian Callahan wrote:
[...]
I think I forgot to mention this in my first email, but this needs
NO_TEST=Yes too.
Sorry for that; it was in my local Makefile, but I forgot to add it
to the tarball; fixed.
When I run abc -h, it identifies itself as "ABC 1.01" -- should that
be the proper name of the PKGNAME? Maybe something like
abc-1.01pl20180722 or abc-1.01.20180722? Presuming that upstream
will eventually crank the version number higher than 1.01?
This is something I thought about... actually, from the code's
history log, last time they bumped that revision number was in 2005,
so I think it is no more used; on the other hand, it's true that the
variables are still there and the version number appears in the
program identification (both in the help message and when launching
the executable).
I let you decide. In attachment a new tarball with:
DISTNAME = 1.01.20180722
but please let me know if I should use a more specific combination of
DISTNAME, PKGNAME, VERSION, RELEASE, ...
On top of that, I submitted the patch upstream [1] and reported the
compiler's warnings [2].
[1] https://github.com/berkeley-abc/abc/issues/17
[2] https://github.com/berkeley-abc/abc/issues/18
