?? lang/python27 ?? Why is this even here ?

[jhell]

On 07/24/2010 23:38, Rob Farmer wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 7:49 PM, jhell <jhell at dataix.net> wrote:
>> # New ports collection makefile for:    python26
>> # Date created:         3 July 2003
>> # Whom:                 Hye-Shik Chang <perky at FreeBSD.org>
>> #
>> # $FreeBSD: ports/lang/python27/Makefile,v 1.166 2010/05/12 12:13:06 wen
>> Exp $
>>
>> PORTNAME=       python26
>> PORTVERSION=    2.6.5
>>
> 
> It's a repocopy - in cases like this, instead of starting a fresh file
> at version 1.1, one of the cvs administrators copies the files from
> the old port so that the history is maintained. So, the copy happened,
> but a committer hasn't actually upgraded the port yet.
> 
> It's discussed in the committers guide:
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/article.html#AEN1391
> 


No offense but I already know this. I do appreciate the time you took to
explain this with the additional link. Thank you.

I guess I should have made it more clear.

+===========================================+
| This happened?: 	2010/05/12 12:13:06 |
| And the date now:	2010/07/25 00:08:51 |
+===========================================+

This is more than 2 months that nothing has been done with this port.
Unless I am wrong and the repo-copy is recent with an old date but I
thought that the ident(1) line was/is/should be updated when this happens?.

After a repo-copy I would have thought that these lines should have been
updated to establish the new port and for whom created it, which would
then be re-committed bumping the version to 1.167 and recent date so
there is no confusion.

# New ports collection makefile for:    python26
# Date created:         3 July 2003
# Whom:                 Hye-Shik Chang <perky at FreeBSD.org>

A nice part about it is you can switch your ORIGIN to that and be all
set for the upgrade. ;)

Any way I just wanted to give a heads up for this as it seemed pretty
odd as things like this usually happen and get updated all about the
same time that a repo-copy happens & this has been in ports that I know
of for more than ~1.5 weeks without any sort of update.


Regards,

PS:

These were not followed from the link above.

When a port has been repo copied:

   1. Do a force commit on the files of the copied port, stating
repository copy was performed.

   2. Upgrade the copied port to the new version. Remember to change the
LATEST_LINK so there are no duplicate ports with the same name. In some
rare cases it may be necessary to change the PORTNAME instead of
LATEST_LINK, but this should only be done when it is really needed --
e.g. using an existing port as the base for a very similar program with
a different name, or upgrading a port to a new upstream version which
actually changes the distribution name, like the transition from
textproc/libxml to textproc/libxml2. In most cases, changing LATEST_LINK
should suffice.


-- 

 jhell,v