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: 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: 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? > Rainer Andrea

Re: octave-forge tarball format changed

Alakazam wrote: > I think adding a Portgroup for octave would be as easy as adding a > file to > >> http://trac.macports.org/browser/trunk/base/src/port1.0/resources/ >> group > > Am I mistaken ? No, that's it. They are stored locally at /opt/local/share/macports/resources/port1.0/group/ and

Re: octave-forge tarball format changed

On 18 mai 08, at 00:28, Rainer Müller wrote: >> I octave-forge packages are going with portgroups I won't commit >> them, >> basically having a common set of properties is what I made, using a >> prototype Portfile and changing only per-package specific data. > > That's exactly what the PortGrou

Re: octave-forge tarball format changed

Andrea D'Amore wrote: > On 17/mag/08, at 21:26, Alakazam wrote: > >> If we agree that that is the correct solution for octave-forge, I can >> look into this in the next couple of days. > > I'm not sure how to cope with portgroups (they have to be builtin into > macports from what I've read). [

Re: octave-forge tarball format changed

On 17/mag/08, at 21:26, Alakazam wrote: > If we agree that that is the correct solution for octave-forge, I can > look into this in the next couple of days. I'm not sure how to cope with portgroups (they have to be builtin into macports from what I've read). I wrote a small script to parse we

Re: octave-forge tarball format changed

On 17 mai 08, at 07:32, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On May 14, 2008, at 7:19 PM, Rainer Müller wrote: > >> Alakazam wrote: >>> Would it be possible to have an octave PortGroup ? That would make >>> it easier to maintain several octave-forge modules in separate >>> portfiles, I think. >> >> Yes, in the

Re: octave-forge tarball format changed

On May 14, 2008, at 7:19 PM, Rainer Müller wrote: > Alakazam wrote: >> Would it be possible to have an octave PortGroup ? That would make >> it easier to maintain several octave-forge modules in separate >> portfiles, I think. > > Yes, in theory. But until we resolve #14553 [1], port groups

Re: octave-forge tarball format changed

Alakazam wrote: Would it be possible to have an octave PortGroup ? That would make it easier to maintain several octave-forge modules in separate portfiles, I think. Yes, in theory. But until we resolve #14553 [1], port groups can only be shipped with new releases (and releases seem to be r

Re: octave-forge tarball format changed

Hi, On 14 mai 08, at 08:08, Andrea D'Amore wrote: What about splitting it up into several ports and make octave-forge depend on all those? This will only work as long as dependencies between these sub-ports can be maintained, otherwise this tends to break... I had a look to debian octave

Re: octave-forge tarball format changed

On 14/mag/08, at 02:04, Rainer Müller wrote: Works, but will result in a huge scripted Portfile. Each phase needs to be handwritten (fetching, extracting, etc.). Indeed I don't know about this pkg command from octave. What is its purpose? To manage octave-forge packages, it is basically

Re: octave-forge tarball format changed

Andrea D'Amore wrote: Hello, octave-forge portfile is pretty outdated, I got latest tarball and structure has changed, main tarball hasn't a configure script anymore,now it's only a collection of .tar.gz, each of them with its own configure script. What's the more convenient way to manage