On 2026/07/07 21:28, Igor Zornik wrote: > Hi! > > Thanks for looking into it. As for the comments: > > > Any reason to name the port go-chroma instead of just chroma? > > There's already a chroma port. It's mentioned in the Makefile. I'm open > for accepting a better solution to resolve naming conflicts.
It's called "chroma-syntax-highlighter" on repology and freebsd. A bit of a mouthful, but I think it's helpful to use an existing name if there is one. If including chromad, I'd only rename the "chroma" binary and leave "chromad" as-is, as there's no conflict for that one. Or skip renaming and just let them conflict.. I'd rename the binary to something that works with "chroma<tab>" if renaming (chroma-hl?). > > Is the -web subpackage really useful? > > Well, no. As I've already written in my opening post, it seems it serves > mostly for demonstrative purposes and it looks nice so I've added it > anyway as an option. That's my personal take on it. I can modify DESCR > based on further decisions. I don't see a reason to split them out to a subpackage; include the files in the main package if they're useful, or drop them if not. > > Anyway is there an issue with tgz? It doesn't seem to build here: > > Sorry to hear that. I don't know what could've gone wrong. It looks OK > to me. I've prepared another .tgz with the port updated to 2.27 as that > was released in the meantime. 'make install-all' works on today's amd64 > snap. I've also replaced tab with a space in WANTLIB. Hopefully you'll > have better experience with this version. builds ok here. (I didn't try the older one). does also need NO_TEST=Yes.
