Re: Porters, please read re GitHub auto-generated tarballs vs releases

Stuart Henderson wrote: > Many ports are using github's on-the-fly generated source-code tarballs > via the GH_ variables in Makefiles. > > ... > > www/liferea Below is the update for www/liferea to use the release source tarball. Tim. Index: Makefile

Re: Porters, please read re GitHub auto-generated tarballs vs releases

On 2018/02/28 18:03, Remi Pointel wrote: Most of them look ok, but for plaso: > -SHA256 (plaso-20180127.tar.gz) = i7wASIbQIw3HtlYU9DatjwI3/DYyx5S/zDGVzsgx1L8= > -SIZE (plaso-20180127.tar.gz) = 110251128 > +SHA256 (plaso-20180127.tar.gz) = kA10e1j2UrkTxhSf3YnSGTPf++3KaktvT5W2OE+C8nU= > +SIZE

Re: Porters, please read re GitHub auto-generated tarballs vs releases

Le 27-02-2018 13:28, Stuart Henderson a écrit : security/plaso security/py-dfdatetime security/py-dfvfs security/py-dfwinreg Hello, these are the diff for these 4 ports. Ok? Cheers, Remi. Index: Makefile === RCS file:

Re: Porters, please read re GitHub auto-generated tarballs vs releases

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 01:49:44PM +, Rafael Sadowski wrote: > On Tue Feb 27, 2018 at 12:28:07PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > > archivers/deutex > > astro/stellarium > > textproc/enchant > > textproc/libical > Please keep your changes to a minimum. i.e only the github stuff changes.

Re: Porters, please read re GitHub auto-generated tarballs vs releases

> -SHA256 (libical-3.0.2.tar.gz) = +Wmb6FIeGuoZCnyHgCgF0ziOCj9Zqbn67exJD1loB6A= > +SHA256 (libical-3.0.2.tar.gz) = DLw/1jCWbh2u0t0cONI2Ig0WbBSfJFv9o8itdF4rZA4= Same problem again. > -SHA256 (stellarium-0.17.0.tar.gz) = > xb4nP4gN4GvwLQQy0sr44r64sWlb7ahs5+t1mI8jdDY= > -SIZE

Re: Porters, please read re GitHub auto-generated tarballs vs releases

On Tue Feb 27, 2018 at 12:28:07PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > archivers/deutex > astro/stellarium > textproc/enchant > textproc/libical > Index: textproc/enchant/Makefile === RCS file: /cvs/ports/textproc/enchant/Makefile,v

Re: Porters, please read re GitHub auto-generated tarballs vs releases

> -SHA256 (xdotool-3.20150503.1.tar.gz) = > sJfvDjiX0aJOP0Xw+u1YMpdC09lDS5tG65frEED5mb8= > +SHA256 (xdotool-3.20150503.1.tar.gz) = > 6DJog71ekb7eczbL7hhubpFD9As/thyEr8m7Mbh+ltE= > -SHA256 (xwallpaper-0.3.0.tar.gz) = > QZOfr3su+ShuOYX71hR8507BOYwR7IUUVK2+9aNulsU= > +SHA256

Re: Porters, please read re GitHub auto-generated tarballs vs releases

On Tue Feb 27, 2018 at 12:28:07PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > Many ports are using github's on-the-fly generated source-code tarballs > via the GH_ variables in Makefiles. > > These are *not* guaranteed to be stable, they can change as github > update software and caches expire (this has

Re: Porters, please read re GitHub auto-generated tarballs vs releases

On 2018/02/27 13:39, Landry Breuil wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 12:28:07PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > Many ports are using github's on-the-fly generated source-code tarballs > > via the GH_ variables in Makefiles. > > > > These are *not* guaranteed to be stable, they can change as

Re: Porters, please read re GitHub auto-generated tarballs vs releases

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 12:28:07PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > Many ports are using github's on-the-fly generated source-code tarballs > via the GH_ variables in Makefiles. > > These are *not* guaranteed to be stable, they can change as github > update software and caches expire (this has

Porters, please read re GitHub auto-generated tarballs vs releases

Many ports are using github's on-the-fly generated source-code tarballs via the GH_ variables in Makefiles. These are *not* guaranteed to be stable, they can change as github update software and caches expire (this has happened at some point over the last few months so we have been seeing a