svn commit: r343559 - head/net-p2p/litecoin

[Steve Wills]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 08:11:46AM +0100, John Marino wrote:
> On 2/10/2014 02:17, Steve Wills wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 11:29:17PM +0000, John Marino wrote:
> >> Author: marino
> >> Date: Sun Feb  9 23:29:16 2014
> >> New Revision: 343559
> >> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/343559
> >> QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r343559/
> >>
> >> Log:
> >>   net-p2p/litecoin: Fix DragonFly (broken by OSVERSION)
> >>   
> >>   Limit OSVERSION-based modifications to FreeBSD.  This port suddenly
> >>   broken and the use of OSVERSION without OPSYS was the cause.
> >>
> >> Modified:
> >>   head/net-p2p/litecoin/Makefile
> >>
> >> Modified: head/net-p2p/litecoin/Makefile
> >> ==============================================================================
> >> --- head/net-p2p/litecoin/Makefile	Sun Feb  9 23:18:17 2014	(r343558)
> >> +++ head/net-p2p/litecoin/Makefile	Sun Feb  9 23:29:16 2014	(r343559)
> >> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ QMAKE_USE_DBUS=	0
> >>  PLIST_FILES+=	share/applications/litecoin-qt.desktop share/pixmaps/litecoin64.png
> >>  .endif
> >>  
> >> -.if ${OSVERSION} >= 1000054
> >> +.if ${OPSYS} == FreeBSD && ${OSVERSION} >= 1000054
> >>  EXTRA_PATCHES+=	${FILESDIR}/extra-patch-endian
> >>  .endif
> >>  
> > 
> > Shouldn't this have required maintainer approval? Or am I confused?
> > 
> 
> According to _my_ interpretation of the "just fix it" blanket, no.  This
> is on par with a typographical error.  The cause of the recent breakage
> is obvious, the fix is obvious, there's no reason for the maintainer to
> object.  Why would an OSVERSION fix require the formality of maintainer
> approval?

Ah, ok. Works for me. I only noticed it because I was removing those lines and
got a conflict. I didn't even know we were supporting DragonFly now, but I
guess I missed a memo as usual.

Steve