Re: livecheck not finding latest version
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 04:31:56AM +0100, Rainer Müller wrote: > Anders F Björklund wrote: > > That's probably because livecheck doesn't check to see if the > > new version is actually *newer*, it only checks if it changed... > > > > if {$updated_version != ${livecheck.version}} { > > set updated 1 > > } else { > > set updated 0 > > } > > We could also use rpm-vercomp here, but you would never notice if the > site being checked is not updated anymore (happens e.g. with freshmeat). > So if the port version is newer than the version livecheck finds, we > should at least issue a warning that livecheck needs to be tweaked. > > Rainer Hi, I found another small problem with the livecheck. I have a port in my local repository which uses ${name}-${version} as livecheck.version. With the current version it gives me the following. First it says it matched and then it doesn't. DEBUG: The regex matched "fdm fdm-1.5 released (Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:33:08 GMT)", extracted "fdm-1.5" DEBUG: The regex matched "fdm fdm-1.4 released (Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:45:11 GMT)", extracted "fdm-1.4" DEBUG: The regex matched "fdm fdm-1.3 released (Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:38:15 GMT)", extracted "fdm-1.3" DEBUG: The regex matched "fdm fdm-1.2 released (Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:16:56 GMT)", extracted "fdm-1.2" DEBUG: The regex matched "fdm fdm-1.1 released (Fri, 06 Apr 2007 13:40:32 GMT)", extracted "fdm-1.1" DEBUG: The regex matched "fdm fdm-1.0 released (Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:45:33 GMT)", extracted "fdm-1.0" DEBUG: The regex matched "fdm fdm-0.9 released (Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:49:31 GMT)", extracted "fdm-0.9" DEBUG: The regex matched "fdm fdm-0.8 released (Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:53:07 GMT)", extracted "fdm-0.8" DEBUG: The regex matched "fdm fdm-0.7 released (Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:59:35 GMT)", extracted "fdm-0.7" DEBUG: The regex matched "fdm fdm-0.6 released (Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:11:36 GMT)", extracted "fdm-0.6" Error: cannot check if fdm was updated (regex didn't match) I looked into this and the problem is that [rpm-vercomp $upver $updated_version] returns -1 if $updated_version is 0 and $upver is something like fdm-1.5 which is true before any version is found. It works fine for $upvar 1.5. The following patch fixes the problem for me but I'm not sure if it causes any other problems. Please check if it works fine. --- src/port1.0/portlivecheck.tcl (revision 34864) +++ src/port1.0/portlivecheck.tcl (working copy) @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ while {[gets $chan line] >= 0} { if {[regexp $the_re $line matched upver]} { set foundmatch 1 -if {[rpm-vercomp $upver $updated_version] > 0} { +if {[rpm-vercomp $upver $updated_version] > 0 || $updated_version == 0} { set updated_version $upver } ui_debug "The regex matched \"$matched\", extracted \"$upver\"" Thanks, Simon -- + privacy is necessary + using http://gnupg.org + public key id: 0x6115F804EFB33229 pgpYJ5wYGAwsg.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
Maintainer away tracking
Hi, It happens from time to time that some maintainer is busy with work or school, has to move, is on vacation or attends some other event which prevents him from taking action on new tickets. So I want to setup a new wiki page (like MaintainerAway) where anybody can add himself with a small explanation how long he is going to be away and maybe also why. If someone adds himself onto this wiki page all of his/her ports will be treated like if they have openmaintainer on them, so anybody can commit updates without explicit permission. This should be taken like a temporarily openmaintainer status. Or the maintainer could also add someone else who should take care of his/her ports for this time. The main advantage would be that the 72h delay does not have to pass as the maintainer will not answer anyway. The wiki page could look like this (with a proper table, of course): [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 2008-04-01 to 2008-04-10 | On vacation, please ask foobar@ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 2008-03-14 to 2008-04-01 | Exams Of course this would also need to be documented in our guide. Any comments appreciated. Do you think this would be an improvement to our infrastructure? Rainer PS: I am writing to both lists as I think this is also an interesting topic for our users. ___ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
Re: livecheck not finding latest version
Simon Ruderich wrote: > I found another small problem with the livecheck. I have a port in my local > repository which uses ${name}-${version} as livecheck.version. With the > current version it gives me the following. First it says it matched and then > it doesn't. I can also reproduce the issue with e.g. enblend from the macports port tree. [...] > I looked into this and the problem is that [rpm-vercomp $upver > $updated_version] returns -1 if $updated_version is 0 and $upver is something > like fdm-1.5 which is true before any version is found. It works fine for > $upvar 1.5. Hm, you are right. rpm-vercomp just skips any alphabetic characters at the begin of the string if they appear in both versions. > The following patch fixes the problem for me but I'm not sure if it causes any > other problems. Please check if it works fine. > > --- src/port1.0/portlivecheck.tcl (revision 34864) > +++ src/port1.0/portlivecheck.tcl (working copy) > @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ > while {[gets $chan line] >= 0} { > if {[regexp $the_re $line matched upver]} { > set foundmatch 1 > -if {[rpm-vercomp $upver $updated_version] > 0} { > +if {[rpm-vercomp $upver $updated_version] > 0 || > $updated_version == 0} { > set updated_version $upver > } > ui_debug "The regex matched \"$matched\", > extracted \"$upver\"" I committed a similar fix in r34874. Rainer ___ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
Rails 2.0 port ?
Dear MacPorts developers: Does anyone know if (or when) Ruby on Rails 2.0 will be available in MacPorts ? Thanks for the info. Keep up the wonderful work! Yann. ___ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
Re: [MacPorts] #14342: python25 drops modules by default, but python25 doesn't (js)
On 8/03/2008, at 8:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 00:22:42 +0900 > From: js <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MacPorts] #14342: python25 drops modules by default,but > python25 doesn't > To: "Markus Weissmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: MacPorts Developers > > Apparently more people like this change. > I'll get back to trac ticket and start working on this. I'm not sure I particularly like this proposed change. As I understand it, you explicitly want to *downgrade* the functionality of python24 to make it more like python25, by for example, removing hashlib and zlib. I cannot understand the logic of this. This can only conceivably break python24 installations. Even if all existing py-* ports are altered to bring in extra required dependencies, peoples (and institutions) own proprietary code that previously assumed the existence of these standard libraries will break. And that will annoy them greatly. Why are you proposing to explicitly *downgrade* python24, instead of *upgrading* python25? I also do not buy into the inference that's been made in this thread in the past that more people must be using python25 than python24. For institutions with large proprietary codebases (eg financial companies), shifting python versions *is* a costly business that is not worth the often negligible benefit. I would suggest that many are still running more code off 2.4 than 2.5 (companies I have been involved with have moved from 1.5->20->2.2->2.4->2.6). I'm not suggesting many such companies run code on OSX, but mine certainly is. derek. ___ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev