Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > On Mar 5, 2009, at 02:54, [email protected] wrote: > >> Revision: 47752 >> http://trac.macports.org/changeset/47752 >> Author: [email protected] >> Date: 2009-03-05 00:54:53 -0800 (Thu, 05 Mar 2009) >> Log Message: >> ----------- >> Updated to new version, elseway py2app does not work on 10.5 any more >> >> Modified Paths: >> -------------- >> trunk/dports/python/py26-macholib/Portfile >> >> Modified: trunk/dports/python/py26-macholib/Portfile >> =================================================================== >> --- trunk/dports/python/py26-macholib/Portfile 2009-03-05 04:54:32 >> UTC (rev 47751) >> +++ trunk/dports/python/py26-macholib/Portfile 2009-03-05 08:54:53 >> UTC (rev 47752) >> @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ >> PortGroup python26 1.0 >> >> name py26-macholib >> -version 1.1 >> +version 1.2.1 >> categories-append devel >> maintainers jmr openmaintainer >> description Mach-O header analysis and editing >> @@ -19,6 +19,10 @@ >> >> platforms darwin >> >> +fetch.type svn >> +svn.url http://svn.pythonmac.org/macholib/macholib/trunk/ >> +worksrcdir trunk >> + >> homepage http://undefined.org/python/#macholib >> master_sites http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/m/macholib/ >> distname macholib-${version} > > This change is bad because a port must never pull from a Subversion > trunk. Doing so means that users installing the port at different times > get different versions of the software, as upstream continues their > development. Please use a distfile if possible, as the port used to do > before your change. If that's not possible and accessing Subversion is > the only option, then you should use a tag URL if possible. I see > upstream has not created a tag for 1.2.1. They don't have a tag for 1.2 > either. 1.2 seems to be the version currently being developed on trunk. > So I question your choice of version number in this update. Without a > tag, you must at least pin the checkout to a particular revision. In > this case, was r24 the change you were interested in? Then use "svn.tag > 24". Or perhaps a better option would be to leave the port at version > 1.1 and just apply the minimum patches necessary to make it work properly.
I'd also appreciate being asked before you make large changes like this; openmaintainer does not mean carte blanche. There is a py25-macholib-devel port which is currently at version 1.2. Making a py26 version of this and having py2app depend on it seems like a better idea. Does py26-py2app need macholib 1.2, or just py26-py2app-devel? - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
