Hi everyone,
Could someone please help me by updating the grails port with the patch file
specified in ticket number 36153?
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/36153
Change summary: update port to point to the latest version of grails (is: 2.1.0
should be 2.1.1).
Change justification: port main
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:58:50AM +0200, Clemens Lang wrote:
> Yes, we could copy the information in the binary header into a database
> and run the testing there, marking packages as broken if a package that
> has been rebuilt no longer satisfies a dependency.
Oh... actually, I'd kinda figured t
On Sep 17, 2012, at 18:13, Dan Ports wrote:
>> I don't see how that takes more time than it did before – the rebuild
>> was needed anyway and the buildbot would have done it anyway: Either
>> because rev-upgrade detected broken linkage, or because somebody
>> commited a revbump. Remember, there's
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:45:40AM +0200, Clemens Lang wrote:
> We are in control of that, so it's entirely our decision whether a
> revbump is our only way to ensure users rebuild.
I think the way I'd prefer to handle this would be to have the buildbot
produce a list of ports that need to be revb
On Sep 17, 2012, at 7:34 AM, William Siegrist wrote:
> I will be migrating the buildbot master (build.macports.org) at 1pm PDT
> today. The website will be down, and no builds will be possible during that
> time. Afterwards, I will trigger builds for any commits that came in during
> the downt
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 03:35:55PM -0700, Dan Ports wrote:
> Could we use a modified rev-upgrade to track the library dependencies
> of all installed archives, not just active ones? Then we could have
> the buildbot scan all ports for broken files and indicate what needs
> to be revbumped.
Yes, we
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 04:32:36PM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> I don't think we ever want to stop revbumping ports. Not everyone has
> rev-upgrade turned on, so increasing the revision is the only way to
> ensure people rebuild. Having an automated way to revbump all affected
> ports would be good
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 05:41:10PM +0200, Clemens Lang wrote:
> MPAB (the software running the buildbots) needs to be adapted to
> activate all dependent ports one-by-one and run rev-upgrade to detect
> this kind of problems.
Could we use a modified rev-upgrade to track the library dependencies
of
On Sep 17, 2012, at 16:24, Clemens Lang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 04:08:21PM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> And *that* would probably put too much strain on the buildbots. It
>> already sometimes takes them hours to build a certain set of ports.
>> (Whenever I update the php port, for exampl
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 04:08:21PM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> And *that* would probably put too much strain on the buildbots. It
> already sometimes takes them hours to build a certain set of ports.
> (Whenever I update the php port, for example.)
I see no other way to have the buildbot aut
On Sep 17, 2012, at 10:41, Clemens Lang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:49AM -0400, Craig Treleaven wrote:
>> One of the hoped-for benefits of developing my port was that the
>> buildbots would rebuild it each time a dependency changed and that I'd
>> be notified of any failed builds.
>
On Sep 17, 2012, at 13:13, ebori...@macports.org wrote:
> Revision: 97845
> http://trac.macports.org//changeset/97845
> Author: ebori...@macports.org
> Date: 2012-09-17 11:13:07 -0700 (Mon, 17 Sep 2012)
> Log Message:
> ---
> OpenIPMI: New port.
> +depends_build port:
On Sep 17, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2012-9-18 01:56 , Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>> Is "supported_archs noarch" and "+universal" mutually exclusive?
>
> Yes, or at least it makes no sense to define a universal variant for a
> noarch port.
>
>> Should the automatic "+universal" v
On 2012-9-18 01:56 , Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
> Is "supported_archs noarch" and "+universal" mutually exclusive?
Yes, or at least it makes no sense to define a universal variant for a
noarch port.
> Should the automatic "+universal" variant be excluded by "supported_archs
> noarch"?
Yes, it is
Is "supported_archs noarch" and "+universal" mutually exclusive?
Should the automatic "+universal" variant be excluded by "supported_archs
noarch"?
Regards,
Bradley Giesbrecht (pixilla)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
macp
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:36:51AM -0400, Craig Treleaven wrote:
> Is the maintainer notified of failures?
Yes.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:27:49AM -0400, Craig Treleaven wrote:
> One of the hoped-for benefits of developing my port was that the
> buildbots would rebuild it each time a dependency c
> Is the maintainer notified of failures? I've never seen such but maybe I'm
> just batting 1.000 still? ;)
I believe it's a combination of who submitted a change and the maintainers get
emailed on build failure. Having non-distributable binaries is not considered
an error.
_
At 11:32 AM -0400 9/17/12, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
> Been meaning to ask...I'm a newbie maintainer. One of the
hoped-for benefits of developing my port was that the buildbots
would rebuild it each time a dependency changed and that I'd be
notified of any failed builds. Alas, I found at the en
> Been meaning to ask...I'm a newbie maintainer. One of the hoped-for benefits
> of developing my port was that the buildbots would rebuild it each time a
> dependency changed and that I'd be notified of any failed builds. Alas, I
> found at the end that a license conflict means that binaries
At 7:34 AM -0700 9/17/12, William Siegrist wrote:
I will be migrating the buildbot master (build.macports.org) at 1pm
PDT today. The website will be down, and no builds will be possible
during that time. Afterwards, I will trigger builds for any commits
that came in during the downtime.
Been
I will be migrating the buildbot master (build.macports.org) at 1pm PDT today.
The website will be down, and no builds will be possible during that time.
Afterwards, I will trigger builds for any commits that came in during the
downtime.
-Bill
___
m
You just filed the ticket minutes ago. Please allow a few days for committers
to notice and deal with the ticket before sending a reminder message to the
list.
Allright, I'll wait next time.
___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge
On Sep 17, 2012, at 08:23, Francois Claire wrote:
> Can someone please check ticket #36180 and commit the files ?
You just filed the ticket minutes ago. Please allow a few days for committers
to notice and deal with the ticket before sending a reminder message to the
list.
___
Hi,
Can someone please check ticket #36180 and commit the files ?
I rename "xymon" into "xymon-client" so the attached Portfile and patch
file are for "xymon-client".
Thanks,
Francois.
___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.or
24 matches
Mail list logo
