Re: [36916] trunk/dports/PortIndex

On 19/mag/08, at 02:44, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote: > Big Woot! to Andrea for pushing our ports count from 4715 to 4776 > (plus another new port by Randall) in one fell swoop, with a single > commit (I imagine Octave loving users are now loving you ;-) No big deal, they are bas

Re: [36916] trunk/dports/PortIndex

On May 18, 2008, at 3:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Revision 36916 Author [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date 2008-05-18 12:44:56 -0700 (Sun, 18 May 2008) Log Message Total number of ports parsed: 4777 Ports successfully parsed: 4777 Ports failed: 0 Modified Paths trunk/dpor

Re: arbitration of multiple master_sites

>>> So if we had this master_sites keyword in port foo: >>> >>> master_sites \ >>> sourceforge \ (ping resp t9) >>> ftp://example1.org \(ping resp t4) >>> http://example2.org \ (ping resp t7) >>> freebsd (ping resp t1) >> >> Actuall

Re: parallel destroot problematic

> I made a partial fix/workaround, that makes destroot.cmd not inherit > build.cmd but instead use the same "make" definition (with make type) > > This is not perfect, since it makes the earlier behaviour of making > destroot.cmd inherit build.cmd. That would still be the preferred... > So there sh

Re: parallel destroot problematic

Rainer Müller wrote: >>> Should we change MacPorts to only add the -j argument to the make >>> command in the build phase, and not do so in the destroot phase? >> Sounds like a good idea to me. > Yes, this is good. We should also merge it to release_1_6 to get it > included in the next 1.6.1 rel

Re: octave-forge tarball format changed

On 18 mai 08, at 14:16, Andrea D'Amore wrote: > Ok so how sohuld we manage this? Wait for inclusion in portgroup? > I've already prepared a good number of portfiles for them and I'm in > the processo of testing them but if we're going with portgroup I'll > just drop it. If I am not mistaken, it

Re: octave-forge tarball format changed

On 18/mag/08, at 10:01, Joshua Root wrote: > Right. Though it would be nice to change that (for everything in the > resources dir, in fact): Ok so how sohuld we manage this? Wait for inclusion in portgroup? I've already prepared a good number of portfile

Re: octave-forge tarball format changed

On 18 mai 08, at 08:19, Andrea D'Amore wrote: > On 18/mag/08, at 01:00, Rainer Müller wrote: > >> No, that's it. They are stored locally at >> /opt/local/share/macports/resources/port1.0/group/ and are part of >> MacPorts base. > > And that means that people won't see it until they don't selfupdat

Re: Forcing destroot to work

Randall Wood wrote: > I'm attempting to write a portfile for swftools but during the > destroot phase, it simply goes ahead and installs into ${prefix} > instead of ${destroot}/${prefix} > > What is the best way to correct this sort of behavior? Either educate the port / upstream about using DEST

Forcing destroot to work

I'm attempting to write a portfile for swftools but during the destroot phase, it simply goes ahead and installs into ${prefix} instead of ${destroot}/${prefix} What is the best way to correct this sort of behavior? -- Randall Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The rules are simple: The ball is round. The

Re: [36832] trunk/dports/archivers/gnutar/Portfile

On 17 May 2008, at 06:47, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On May 16, 2008, at 2:55 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> version 1.20 with workaround for broken gcc-4.0 on 10.5: beta gcc >> 4.2 needs to be installed :/ > >> +platform darwin 9 { >> +# gcc 4.0 fails to compile gnutar on 10.5 (probably will

Re: octave-forge tarball format changed

> On 18/mag/08, at 01:00, Rainer Müller wrote: > >> No, that's it. They are stored locally at >> /opt/local/share/macports/resources/port1.0/group/ and are part of >> MacPorts base. > > And that means that people won't see it until they don't selfupdate, > doesn't it? Right. Though it would be

Re: arbitration of multiple master_sites

Rainer Müller wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Sourceforge, gnu, etc., special mirrors go after sorted url list >>> No. They get mixed in with the other master_sites and sorted. >> >> So if we had this master_sites keyword in port foo: >> >> master_sites \ >> sourceforge \