r341435: deletion of graphics/fotoxx

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 07:10:01PM +0100, Rainer Hurling wrote:
> 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
> 

Please followup on the same PR

regards,
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20140205/c4f8b00d/attachment.sig>