r341435: deletion of graphics/fotoxx

Rainer Hurling rhurlin at gwdg.de
Wed Feb 5 20:39:08 UTC 2014


Am 05.02.2014 20:36, schrieb 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

Thanks for answering. I attached the patch to PR ports/177643 with some
info around it.

Regards,
Rainer

> 
> regards,
> Bapt
> 



More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list