Re: About adding a version component: the case of Infinality (was depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!)

On Monday January 26 2015 04:55:57 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > You're right, MacPorts doesn't have a good way to handle third-party patches > that are independently maintained and independently versioned. I've been > avoiding this ticket of yours, because I don't like such patches. The > developer of

Re: About adding a version component: the case of Infinality (was depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!)

On Jan 23, 2015, at 4:56 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > Working on cairo yesterday I did notice something weird though that didn't > seem to be due to any changes I made. As soon as I bumped the cairo version > from 1.12.16 to 1.14.0, I started getting errors on how I was requesting a > differe

Re: About adding a version component: the case of Infinality (was depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!)

On Jan 23, 2015, at 4:48 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > On Thursday January 22 2015 21:45:09 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >> I don't think we ever intended the version to be changed inside a variant. I >> would consider it a maintainer error to do so. I don't think the portindex >> accommodates more t

Re: PowerPC ld64 on Snow Leopard (Was: depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!)

On Jan 24, 2015, at 4:09 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: > > Updated the ld64 port with this behavior. Thanks! I think this will help. ___ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/m

Re: PowerPC ld64 on Snow Leopard (Was: depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!)

Updated the ld64 port with this behavior. I'm holding off on doing cctools like that since I'm hoping we can just make it the latest version everywhere. > On Jan 23, 2015, at 11:10, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2015, at 2:16 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia > wrote: > >> No, that's

Re: About adding a version component: the case of Infinality (was depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!)

On Friday January 23 2015 11:48:49 René J.V. Bertin wrote: > I'll upload the current Portfile drafts to the existing infinality tickets on > trac https://trac.macports.org/ticket/44148#comment:12 R ___ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.mac

Re: PowerPC ld64 on Snow Leopard (Was: depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!)

On Jan 23, 2015, at 2:16 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: > No, that's expected. If ppc is desirer, we should have 127.2. Right. I meant "worse" in the sense of "more confusing", as far as the port itself goes. > I think the best solution would probably be similar to the perl port. We

Re: PowerPC ld64 on Snow Leopard (Was: depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!)

On Jan 23, 2015, at 2:12 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: > ld64 and cctools have been that way for years without issue. Only recently > did I remove that in an effort to make the versioning of those ports less > complicated. See: > > https://trac.macports.org/changeset/131487 Huh, int

Re: PowerPC ld64 on Snow Leopard (Was: depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!)

> On Jan 22, 2015, at 22:35, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2015, at 1:33 AM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > >> My last change dropped ld64 +universal to v127.2 > > Rather, it changed the version if a PowerPC build were requested in any way. > So that's probably even worse. No, that'

Re: PowerPC ld64 on Snow Leopard (Was: depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!)

> On Jan 22, 2015, at 22:33, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2015, at 10:45 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >> I don't think we ever intended the version to be changed inside a variant. I >> would consider it a maintainer error to do so. I don't think the portindex >> accommodates more th

Re: PowerPC ld64 on Snow Leopard (Was: depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!)

On Jan 23, 2015, at 1:33 AM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > My last change dropped ld64 +universal to v127.2 Rather, it changed the version if a PowerPC build were requested in any way. So that's probably even worse. vq ___ macports-dev mailing list mac

PowerPC ld64 on Snow Leopard (Was: depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!)

On Jan 22, 2015, at 10:45 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > I don't think we ever intended the version to be changed inside a variant. I > would consider it a maintainer error to do so. I don't think the portindex > accommodates more than one version per port, and the portindex is used to > determine

Re: depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!

> On Jan 21, 2015, at 5:43 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > >>> I've tried changing the version in the +infinality variant, so that for >>> instance port:freetype is at 2.5.4 and port:freetype+infinality at >>> 2.5.4.150101 . That works, but something in MacPorts breaks. I can do `port >>> patch

Re: depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!

On Jan 22, 2015, at 1:49 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > On Wednesday January 21 2015 17:10:38 Bradley Giesbrecht wrote: > I've tried changing the version in the +infinality variant, so that for instance port:freetype is at 2.5.4 and port:freetype+infinality at 2.5.4.150101 . Tha

Re: depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!

On 2015-1-22 20:49 , René J.V. Bertin wrote: > How does MacPorts' version comparison work, btw? Does it only account for > decimal points as version level separators or does it try to be more > versatile than that? Like this:

Re: depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!

On 2015-1-22 05:13 , René J.V. Bertin wrote: > Hi, > > I'm reworking my freetype and fontconfig infinality variants. The freetype > +infinality variant will have a runtime dependency freetype-infinality, a > (sub)port that serves mostly to introduce the versioning information for the > Infinali

Re: depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!

On Jan 21, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > On Jan 21, 2015, at 5:10 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > >> The situation is this: Infinality are patches that improve rendering but >> don't change anything else. So a variant is the logical way to go, as it >> won't break dependencies.

Re: depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!

On Wednesday January 21 2015 18:03:45 Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > > Those patches evolve, and thus have a version number, which is simply a > > date. If it were me, I'd put that version number into the revision, which > > corresponds almost perfectly to the intended use of that variable. > > No

Re: depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!

On Jan 21, 2015, at 5:10 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > The situation is this: Infinality are patches that improve rendering but > don't change anything else. So a variant is the logical way to go, as it > won't break dependencies. Sure. > Those patches evolve, and thus have a version number,

Re: depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!

On Wednesday January 21 2015 14:16:38 Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > > The freetype +infinality variant will have a runtime dependency > > freetype-infinality, a (sub)port that serves mostly to introduce the > > versioning information for the Infinality patches, but also installs a few > > text f

Re: depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!

On Jan 21, 2015, at 1:13 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > The freetype +infinality variant will have a runtime dependency > freetype-infinality, a (sub)port that serves mostly to introduce the > versioning information for the Infinality patches, but also installs a few > text files. This sounds

depends_run should ignore +/- universal?!

Hi, I'm reworking my freetype and fontconfig infinality variants. The freetype +infinality variant will have a runtime dependency freetype-infinality, a (sub)port that serves mostly to introduce the versioning information for the Infinality patches, but also installs a few text files. It is thu