svn commit: r475644 - head/databases/mantis

[Dan Langille]

> On Aug 24, 2018, at 5:56 PM, Tobias Kortkamp <tobik at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018, at 22:49, Dan Langille wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 2018, at 6:51 AM, Jochen Neumeister <joneum at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Author: joneum
>>> Date: Sun Jul 29 10:51:37 2018
>>> New Revision: 475644
>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/475644
>>> 
>>> Log:
>>> databases/mantis: Update to 2.15.0
>>> 
>>> Changelog: https://mantisbt.org/bugs/changelog_page.php?project=mantisbt&version=2.15.0
>>> 
>>> PR:		229880
>>> Submitted by:	Nathan <ndowens.fbsd at yandex.com>
>>> MFH:		2018Q3
>>> Security:	0822a4cf-9318-11e8-8d88-00e04c1ea73d
>>> 
>>> Modified:
>>> head/databases/mantis/Makefile
>>> head/databases/mantis/distinfo
>> 
>> This version fails to run for me.  The vendor directory is missing.
>> This is the error I get:
>> 
>> [Mon Aug 20 20:40:14.528249 2018] [:error] [pid 73365] [client redacted]
>> PHP Warning:  require_once(/usr/local/www/mantis/vendor/autoload.php):
>> failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /usr/local/www/
>> mantis/core.php on line 71
>> [Mon Aug 20 20:40:14.528317 2018] [:error] [pid 73365] [client redacted]
>> PHP Fatal error:  require_once(): Failed opening required '/usr/local/
>> www/mantis/vendor/autoload.php' (include_path='/usr/local/share/pear')
>> in /usr/local/www/mantis/core.php on line 71
>> 
>> Is this working for anyone?
>> 
>> There was no vendor directory in the 2.6.0 tarball.  There isn't one in
>> the 2.15.0 tarball either, but the code definitely references it.
>> 
>> Upstream inquires
>> (https://mantisbt.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=66190#p66190
>> <https://mantisbt.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=66190#p66190>) indicate we
>> should be using Sourceforge downloads, not GitHub
>> 
>> The vendor directory is present in the SF tarball at
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/mantisbt/files/mantis-stable/2.16.0/
>> <https://sourceforge.net/projects/mantisbt/files/mantis-stable/2.16.0/>
>> 
>> I tried last night to update the port, but failed.
>> 
>> Ideas please?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> could you test the update to 2.16.0 on https://reviews.freebsd.org/D16890 <https://reviews.freebsd.org/D16890> ?
> I've switched it over to the SF tarball and it seems to work ok
> for me, but would appreciate a confirmation from someone else that
> it works before committing it.
> 
> Thanks!


The patch does not apply cleanly to the Makefile for me, so I applied it manually.

It builds, it runs.

A patch against head is belowl

I create diffs against head and uploaded them here:

https://gist.github.com/dlangille/a9de194209795a4261eebbd3de65e841 <https://gist.github.com/dlangille/a9de194209795a4261eebbd3de65e841>

One is for the Makefile, the other is for the whole port.

Hope this helps.

Thank you, your work got me running again. I look forward to the commit.

--
Dan Langille - BSDCan / PGCon
dan at langille.org


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 658 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20180825/03cd6963/attachment.sig>