On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 11:50:23PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
`make update-plist' adds tags for msgpack, though.
Thank you, I had forgotten about that.
Feedback? OK?
In any case, thank you.
diff for devel/msgpack:
Separate diffs in the same mail are a bit annoying to apply, best send
On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 10:52:56PM +0300, Andrew Krasavin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 12:55:21AM -0700, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> > Klemens Nanni writes:
> > > > better with 1.11.0pl20220207 so that if there is another proper release
> > > > it won't need EPOCH
> > >
> > > What never
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 12:55:21AM -0700, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
Klemens Nanni writes:
> better with 1.11.0pl20220207 so that if there is another proper release
> it won't need EPOCH
What never version would require EPOCH?
1.11.1, 1.12.0 and 2.0.0 would all be greater than 1.11.0.20220207,
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 12:55:21AM -0700, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> Klemens Nanni writes:
> > > better with 1.11.0pl20220207 so that if there is another proper release
> > > it won't need EPOCH
> >
> > What never version would require EPOCH?
> > 1.11.1, 1.12.0 and 2.0.0 would all be greater than
Klemens Nanni writes:
> > better with 1.11.0pl20220207 so that if there is another proper release
> > it won't need EPOCH
>
> What never version would require EPOCH?
> 1.11.1, 1.12.0 and 2.0.0 would all be greater than 1.11.0.20220207, no?
1.11.0.1 would require an EPOCH.
Upstreams adding an
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 02:39:12AM +0300, Andrew Krasavin wrote:
I was thinking a bit about updating the msgpack port. I came to the
conclusion that we should probably bump SHARED_LIBS and also check
the build of all ports that depend on msgpack.
Intend to start doing this now.
Apparently, by
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 09:46:09AM +0100, Omar Polo wrote:
I just finished a mini bulk build with `show-reverse-deps devel/gtest`
in a clean proot and successfully built 1872 packages, so I'm quite sure
it won't brings things down in real bulks.
if it helps, I've uploaded the logs here.
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 05:52:46PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
Personally, I thought that using PATCHFILES was always preferable to
adding normal ports patches. Apparently this is not the case, and in
cases where the changes are minor and affect a single file, 'normal ports
patches' in the
On 2022/02/08 20:32, Andrew Krasavin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 12:31:39PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >
> > > +MASTER_SITES0 = https://github.com/google/googletest/commit/
> > > +# Fix gtest-help-test failure on OpenBSD
> > > +# https://github.com/google/googletest/pull/3751
> > >
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 12:31:39PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2022/02/07 22:18, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > -GH_TAGNAME=release-$V
> > -PKGNAME = gtest-$V
> > +GH_COMMIT= 43efa0a4efd40c78b9210d15373112081899a97c
> > +DISTNAME = gtest-1.11.0.20220207
>
> better with 1.11.0pl20220207
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 08:32:53PM +0300, Andrew Krasavin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 12:31:39PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >
> > > +MASTER_SITES0 = https://github.com/google/googletest/commit/
> > > +# Fix gtest-help-test failure on OpenBSD
> > > +#
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 12:31:39PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
+MASTER_SITES0 =https://github.com/google/googletest/commit/
+# Fix gtest-help-test failure on OpenBSD
+# https://github.com/google/googletest/pull/3751
+PATCHFILES = fix-gtest-help-test-{}631f4f99.patch:0
it just
On 2022/02/07 22:18, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> -GH_TAGNAME= release-$V
> -PKGNAME =gtest-$V
> +GH_COMMIT= 43efa0a4efd40c78b9210d15373112081899a97c
> +DISTNAME = gtest-1.11.0.20220207
better with 1.11.0pl20220207 so that if there is another proper release
it won't need EPOCH
>
Klemens Nanni writes:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 09:46:09AM +0100, Omar Polo wrote:
> [...]
>> so OK for gtest as long as you don't forget to fix msgpack too :)
>>
>> (a revision bump shouldn't be needed in this case, since gtest is
>> bumping SHARED_LIBS too, but maybe to play on the safe side
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 09:46:09AM +0100, Omar Polo wrote:
> Klemens Nanni writes:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 01:11:23AM +0300, Andrew Krasavin wrote:
> >> I apologize for the long answer, it's been quite a busy day.
>
> sorry for the late reply, building the packages too longer than what
>
Klemens Nanni writes:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 01:11:23AM +0300, Andrew Krasavin wrote:
>> I apologize for the long answer, it's been quite a busy day.
sorry for the late reply, building the packages too longer than what
i thought
>> > Another thing, upstream won't release further versions
Hello.
Reasoning:
The devel/abseil-cpp port comes with the tests turned off. I
promised to fix this, so I've been working on the port for a while.
Unfortunately, the abseil tests require some features that are
missing even in the latest stable gtest release.
Therefore, my diff includes an
On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 10:18:43PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 01:11:23AM +0300, Andrew Krasavin wrote:
I apologize for the long answer, it's been quite a busy day.
>
> Another thing, upstream won't release further versions and suggest to
> build from the latest commit
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 01:11:23AM +0300, Andrew Krasavin wrote:
> I apologize for the long answer, it's been quite a busy day.
>
> >
> > Another thing, upstream won't release further versions and suggest to
> > build from the latest commit instead... so I'd fetch from a specific
> > commit
I apologize for the long answer, it's been quite a busy day.
Another thing, upstream won't release further versions and suggest to
build from the latest commit instead... so I'd fetch from a specific
commit instead of keeping a long list of PATCHFILES.
cf
Andrew Krasavin writes:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 06:05:17PM +0100, Omar Polo wrote:
>>hello :)
>>
>>thanks for worknig on the update, i have a similar diff locally but
>>stopped due to the fact that some ports didn't build. I'll try to do
>>another round of testing tho.
>>
>>I wanted to
On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 06:05:17PM +0100, Omar Polo wrote:
hello :)
thanks for worknig on the update, i have a similar diff locally but
stopped due to the fact that some ports didn't build. I'll try to do
another round of testing tho.
I wanted to report thought that the diff is mangled :/
Hello.
Reasoning:
The devel/abseil-cpp port comes with the tests turned off. I
promised to fix this, so I've been working on the port for a while.
Unfortunately, the abseil tests require some features that are
missing even in the latest stable gtest release.
Therefore, my diff includes an
23 matches
Mail list logo
