will the use of GitHub ever be fully explained?

[Chris H]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 13:36:35 -0500 Ricky G <ricky1252 at hotmail.com> wrote

> Hey there Chris,
>  I actually invested some time figuring this out. When the GH_TAGNAME is
> used, that hash will be downloaded instead of the PORTVERSION. Pretty much
> the PORTVERSION variable is ignored other than the fact that is will be
> packed as ${PORTVERSION} so it is important to keep TAGNAME and PORTVERSION
> in sync.
Big thanks for the thoughtful reply, Ricky!
That's great to know!
I just now managed to figure out a solution. My problem was that I
*needed* the latest commit, but couldn't rely on the MASTER branch
(for obvious reasons). So, even though it was "technically" 2.0,
there was no 2.0 TAG. So I needed that specific COMMIT. So I
ended up using the following:

PORTVERSION=	2.0
DISTNAME=	${GH_ACCOUNT}-${GH_PROJECT}-${PORTVERSION}-${GH_COMMIT}
USE_GITHUB=	yes
GH_ACCOUNT=	yadda-yadda
GH_PROJECT=	project-name
GH_COMMIT=	95f841f
GH_TAGNAME=	${GH_COMMIT}

Followed by a
# make checksum
to get all the missing bits -- and I was golden! :-)

Thanks again, Ricky!

> > Subject: will the use of GitHub ever be fully explained?
> > Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 08:34:56 -0800
> > 
> > Greetings fellow maintainers,
> >  I'd like to update a port that's moved to GitHub.
> > I pretty well understand the use MASTER_SITES where GitHub
> > is concerned *except* where the need to use GIT_HASH for
> > GH_TAGNAME, is concerned. Sure, I know how to put it there.
> > But I am unclear how that affects the PORTVERSION entry.
> > Does anyone have an example they'd be willing to share?
> > Please?
> > 
> > What I'd like to accomplish:
> > 
> > PORTVERSION=    2.0
> > 
> > USE_GITHUB=    yes
> > 
> > GH_TAGNAME=    95f841f
> > 
> > But I don't think this will work.
> > 

--Chris

--