On Mar 18, 2012, at 07:28, [email protected] wrote: > Revision: 90923 > https://trac.macports.org/changeset/90923 > Author: [email protected] > Date: 2012-03-18 05:28:54 -0700 (Sun, 18 Mar 2012) > Log Message: > ----------- > cross/msp430-binutils: > Updated to use better patch URLs > > Modified Paths: > -------------- > trunk/dports/cross/msp430-binutils/Portfile > > Modified: trunk/dports/cross/msp430-binutils/Portfile > =================================================================== > --- trunk/dports/cross/msp430-binutils/Portfile 2012-03-18 12:25:56 UTC > (rev 90922) > +++ trunk/dports/cross/msp430-binutils/Portfile 2012-03-18 12:28:54 UTC > (rev 90923) > @@ -12,8 +12,8 @@ > conflicts ${name}-devel > maintainers g5pw > > -patch_sites > http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/mspgcc/Patches/${distname}/ \ > - > http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/mspgcc/Patches/LTS/${lts_date}/ \ > +patch_sites sourceforge:project/mspgcc/Patches/${distname}/ \ > + sourceforge:project/mspgcc/Patches/LTS/${lts_date}/ \ > > patchfiles ${name}-${version}.patch \ > ${name}-${version}-sf3143071.patch \
Unless *all* of the patchfiles are available from *all* of the patch_sites, you should use tags to indicate which patchfiles are available at which patch_sites; that way MacPorts doesn't unnecessarily try downloading files from locations where we already know they won't be found. See attached patch. (If you can come up with better descriptions for these two patch_sites than "patch1" and "patch2" by all means do so.)
msp430-binutils.diff
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
