Hello Kevin and Dan, Thank you for your replies.
Welcome!
I am glad to hear this.
I think we all agree that the website could use some love.
I will write what I learnt from you in my blog in Japanese.
The ones which are updates to existing ports, have you emailed the maintainer of said port?
I did as you suggested. What about those ports written by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Revisions to existing ports (revisions meaning changing the portfile without bumping the version, often incrementing the revision number if the build products will change) should be defect if it's fixing a bug or enhancement if it's adding something like, say, a variant.
Then could you change as follows? #11519 octave-forge enhancement #11512 odcctools enhancement #11516 cdo-1.0.6 enhancement Please set priorities of octave-forge and odcctools to Nice to have.
Dependencies are unversioned.
I like this simplicity.
You might disagree, but the port:foo version is preferred as a matter of policy (and because it prevents a certain class of problems).
I prefer port:foo to what Fink does. In Fink I had to divide one into binary, libraries and headers. Could someone tell me how portfiles are reviewed? Will someone commit it if it is OK? Takeshi _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
