On Sep 19, 2013, at 00:58, Joshua Root wrote regarding the [suffix] proc:
> I'd rather it was removed from all ports.
I did it for my ports, and will work on portgroups and nomaintainer and
openmaintainer ports next.
___
macports-dev mailing list
ma
On 2013-9-19 15:40 , mk-macpo...@techno.ms wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2013, at 10:56 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>> http://trac.macports.org/browser/tags/release_2_2_0/base/src/port1.0/portfetch.tcl#L208
>
> Ah, okay, it belongs of course to the fetch phase… That's logical, since
> checksums are check
On Sep 19, 2013, at 7:49 AM, Joshua Root wrote:
> The suffix proc probably shouldn't be used at all. Literally all it does
> is return "${distname}${extract.suffix}", so it's more of an obfuscation
> than a help.
Yep, obfuscation is the word! :)
So, when I'll update the Guide I'll NOT suggest usi
On 2013-9-19 04:57 , mk-macpo...@techno.ms wrote:
> Hi Lawrence,
>
> On Sep 18, 2013, at 8:44 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>> http://trac.macports.org/browser/trunk/dports/editors/vim/Portfile?rev=110123#L62
>
>> http://trac.macports.org/browser/trunk/dports/python/py-oursql/Portfile?rev=111088#
On Sep 18, 2013, at 10:56 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> http://trac.macports.org/browser/tags/release_2_2_0/base/src/port1.0/portfetch.tcl#L208
Ah, okay, it belongs of course to the fetch phase… That's logical, since
checksums are checked in that phase.
OK, I think that the command should be do
On Sep 18, 2013, at 16:39, Rainer Müller wrote:
> On 2013-09-18 20:57, mk-macpo...@techno.ms wrote:
>> I wonder where to find the documentation of the suffix function used by
>> py-oursql. Looks like it is appending the extract.suffix, but it is not
>> obvious that it belongs to extract...
>
> I
On Sep 18, 2013, at 2:57 PM, mk-macpo...@techno.ms wrote:
> I wonder where to find the documentation of the suffix function used by
> py-oursql. Looks like it is appending the extract.suffix, but it is not
> obvious that it belongs to extract...
http://trac.macports.org/browser/tags/release_2_
Hi Lawrence,
On Sep 18, 2013, at 8:44 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> http://trac.macports.org/browser/trunk/dports/editors/vim/Portfile?rev=110123#L62
> http://trac.macports.org/browser/trunk/dports/python/py-oursql/Portfile?rev=111088#L42
>
> There are probably others. Try grepping for "patch_
On Sep 18, 2013, at 3:40 AM, Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2013-9-18 17:28 , mk-macpo...@techno.ms wrote:
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> could it be advisable to have checksums also for every patch file associated
>> with a certain port?
>> (But this is probably not needed when the patch file is being pulled via
On 2013-9-18 17:28 , mk-macpo...@techno.ms wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> could it be advisable to have checksums also for every patch file associated
> with a certain port?
> (But this is probably not needed when the patch file is being pulled via svn
> or rsync from the MacPorts tree, because there eve
Hi devs,
could it be advisable to have checksums also for every patch file associated
with a certain port?
(But this is probably not needed when the patch file is being pulled via svn or
rsync from the MacPorts tree, because there everything is reviewable.)
The situation should be different in
11 matches
Mail list logo
