r341435: deletion of graphics/fotoxx

[Rainer Hurling]

Am 28.01.2014 17:55, schrieb Rainer Hurling:
> Am 28.01.2014 15:10, schrieb Baptiste Daroussin:
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 03:07:46PM +0100, Rainer Hurling wrote:
>>> Am 28.01.2014 13:48 (UTC+1) schrieb Dag-Erling Smørgrav:
>>>> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des at des.no> writes:
>>>>> Actually, the file *is* 2696168 bytes long.  With the following patch,
>>>>> fetch(1) will still hang getting the last 1018 bytes, but the file will
>>>>> be complete and the download will be successful.
>>>>
>>>> Completely fixed (no hang, no missing data) in head at 261230.
>>>
>>> Wow, many thanks for the fix!
>>>
>>> After rebuilding 11.0-CURRENT, I can confirm that fetch now is able to
>>> load fotoxx-14.01.1.tar.gz as expected.
>>>
>>> Eventually some of the fetch failures listed in the ports PR database
>>> also depended on this behaviour before the fix?
>>>
>>> Many thanks again. Now there is a real chance of an updated
>>> graphics/fotoxx port :)
>>>
>> Can you update the patch for the PR to the 14.01.1 version while here maybe you
>> want to add yourself as a maintainer :)
> 
> Hi Bapt,
> 
> I tried to create an update to version 14.01.1. What I did, was:
> 
> - update to version 14.01.1
> - new mastersite; 2nd mastersites contents has to be updated
> - unbreak the port
> - modernize LIB_DEPENDS
> - support STAGE_DIR
> - strip bin/fotoxx
> - correct usage of desktop-file-utils
> - update URL in pkg-descr
> - update pkg-plist
> 
> Known problems or TODOs:
> - libexecinfo.so.1 is found in system and from port. No idea, which one
> is the correct one to use (depending on OS version?).
> - fotoxx now uses /proc for file operations. This was changed by the
> author after version 11.03.
> 
> The updated port builds and installs fine for me (11.0-CURRENT).
> Portlint complains about usage of ".if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MDOCS}" to wrap
> installation of files into /usr/local/share/doc). Is this relevant and
> what is necessary to consider it?
> 
> The diff is attached. I did not file a PR, because I think the usage of
> /proc should be solved before. At runtime, the program is not fully
> usable, because many functions try to get their info from /proc/...
> 
> I am not sure, if I am the right person to maintain the port. My skills
> are very low (I am not a programmer, only an interested scientist ...)
> and their are many things I do not fully understand.
> 
> Any help is really appreciated.
> 
> Greetings,
> Rainer
> 
>>
>> regards,
>> Bapt
>>

What do you think: Would it be better to put my draft of a patch and the
remarks from my precedent mail into an existing (PR 177643) or new PR to
not lose it?

All of us are very busy and there are many other things with much higher
priority to do ...

Looking forward to any answer.

Greetings,
Rainer