[email protected] writes: > On Dec 13, 2013, at 16:49, [email protected] wrote: > >> Revision >> 114687 >> Author >> [email protected] >> Date >> 2013-12-13 14:49:52 -0800 (Fri, 13 Dec 2013) >> Log Message >> >> github-1.0: use worksrpath variable when renaming folder; fixes #41797 >> Modified Paths >> >> • trunk/dports/_resources/port1.0/group/github-1.0.tcl >> Diff >> >> Modified: trunk/dports/_resources/port1.0/group/github-1.0.tcl (114686 => >> 114687) >> >> --- trunk/dports/_resources/port1.0/group/github-1.0.tcl 2013-12-13 >> 22:30:27 UTC (rev 114686) >> +++ trunk/dports/_resources/port1.0/group/github-1.0.tcl 2013-12-13 >> 22:49:52 UTC (rev 114687) >> >> @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ >> >> [llength [glob -nocomplain ${workpath}/*]] > 0} { >> >> if {[file exists [glob >> ${workpath}/${github.author}-${github.project}-*]] && \ >> >> [file isdirectory [glob >> ${workpath}/${github.author}-${github.project}-*]]} { >> >> - move [glob >> ${workpath}/${github.author}-${github.project}-*] >> ${workpath}/${name}-${version} >> >> + move [glob >> ${workpath}/${github.author}-${github.project}-*] ${worksrcpath} > > I had mentioned on the mailing list that it would be nice to *not* use > worksrcpath here, so that we could finally fix the bug which prevented ports > using the github portgroup from being able to use the worksrcpath variable > effectively. > > https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2013-December/025456.html > > I had suggested using “${distname}” instead. Markus went with > "${workpath}/${name}-${version}”; I’m not sure why.
Ok, I must have missed that. It seems that this needs some refactoring / abstraction so that another port group can change worksrcpath (or distname) and not affect ports that use worksrcpath in their portfile. I don't really care how it's solved as long as it doesn't break compatibility. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
