Re: bash script in OpenBSD ports (was Re: [New] nnn-1.7)

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2018/05/06 12:48, Raul Miller wrote:
> I would like to better understand these concerns.
> 
> Coping with other people’s configurations is inherently nondeterministic —
> what’s interesting though are the significant examples. But I have a
> problem thinking up an example where this would break which would not
> already be broken. I imagine you had some in mind?

PATH is under control of the (not-necessarily-sysadmin) user.

If that is set to something not containing /usr/local/bin, it will be broken
with env, but will work if it's patched.

If PATH is set to include a directory containing something called "bash"
ahead of /usr/local/bin then it won't be using the standard version of bash
from packages.

> That said, the point with upstream should not be instant adoption but —
> where it can make sense — the possibility of eventual convergence.
> Shouldn’t it?

Upstream typically wants something that works on many OS without having
to field support requests. OS packagers typically want something that
works consistently regardless of user-settable config.

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2018/05/06 20:06, Ljuba Nedeljkovic wrote:
> Thank you sthen@ for reviewing the port. Attached is the port with
> suggested changes, problems that kn@ pointed out (thanks!) are
> fixed as well.

OK with me.

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[Ljuba Nedeljkovic]

Thank you sthen@ for reviewing the port. Attached is the port with
suggested changes, problems that kn@ pointed out (thanks!) are
fixed as well.

Best

On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Stuart Henderson 
wrote:

> On 2018/05/06 00:01, Ljuba Nedeljkovic wrote:
> > Attached is the port of nnn, version 1.8. Upstream is releasing
> > source tarball as a formal/proper release so GH_* are gone.
> > Patch (present in previous port submissions) is also gone since
> > upstream fixed portability issue with shell script.
> >
> > Tests/comments.suggestions are welcome.
>
> I'm no fan of this:
>
> #!/usr/bin/env bash
>
> It's not deterministic (relies on the user's PATH being set in a certain
> way), I would normally patch these to use ${LOCALBASE}/bin/bash like you
> had
> in earlier versions of your port.
>
>


-- 
If you wish to live wisely,
ignore sayings -- including this one.


nnn-1.8.tar.gz
Description: application/gzip

Re: bash script in OpenBSD ports (was Re: [New] nnn-1.7)

[Raul Miller]

I would like to better understand these concerns.

Coping with other people’s configurations is inherently nondeterministic —
what’s interesting though are the significant examples. But I have a
problem thinking up an example where this would break which would not
already be broken. I imagine you had some in mind?

That said, the point with upstream should not be instant adoption but —
where it can make sense — the possibility of eventual convergence.
Shouldn’t it?

Anyways, I am curious about this (and learning).

Thanks,

—
Raul

On Sunday, May 6, 2018, Stuart Henderson  wrote:

> On 2018/05/06 10:15, Raul Miller wrote:
> > perhaps:
> >
> > #!/usr/bin/env PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin bash
> >
> > ?
>
> it doesn't make a lot of sense doing it that way, the chances of
> upstream accepting that are pretty low so it will still need patching,
> plus you still have non-deterministic behaviour..
>
>

Re: bash script in OpenBSD ports (was Re: [New] nnn-1.7)

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2018/05/06 10:15, Raul Miller wrote:
> perhaps:
> 
> #!/usr/bin/env PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin bash
> 
> ?

it doesn't make a lot of sense doing it that way, the chances of
upstream accepting that are pretty low so it will still need patching,
plus you still have non-deterministic behaviour..

Re: bash script in OpenBSD ports (was Re: [New] nnn-1.7)

[Raul Miller]

perhaps:

#!/usr/bin/env PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin bash

?

-- 
Raul


On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Stuart Henderson  wrote:
> On 2018/05/06 09:47, Daniel Jakots wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 May 2018 12:08:01 +0100, Stuart Henderson
>>  wrote:
>>
>> > I'm no fan of this:
>> >
>> > #!/usr/bin/env bash
>> >
>> > It's not deterministic (relies on the user's PATH being set in a
>> > certain way), I would normally patch these to use
>> > ${LOCALBASE}/bin/bash like you had in earlier versions of your port.
>>
>> We discussed this in Nantes. The reason of using env is that it's
>> portable so you can upstream the patch.
>>
>> The current situation sucks that depending on who you ask you get a
>> different answer :(
>
> We discussed it but didn't come to a conclusion...
>
> With env, it sometimes works, sometimes doesn't, depending on how
> the environment is setup - with a patch, it always works.
>
> The patches are annoying though. Maybe we need some equivalent of
> MODPY_BIN_ADJ for bash?
>

Re: bash script in OpenBSD ports (was Re: [New] nnn-1.7)

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2018/05/06 09:47, Daniel Jakots wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2018 12:08:01 +0100, Stuart Henderson
>  wrote:
> 
> > I'm no fan of this:
> > 
> > #!/usr/bin/env bash
> > 
> > It's not deterministic (relies on the user's PATH being set in a
> > certain way), I would normally patch these to use
> > ${LOCALBASE}/bin/bash like you had in earlier versions of your port.
> 
> We discussed this in Nantes. The reason of using env is that it's
> portable so you can upstream the patch.
> 
> The current situation sucks that depending on who you ask you get a
> different answer :(

We discussed it but didn't come to a conclusion...

With env, it sometimes works, sometimes doesn't, depending on how
the environment is setup - with a patch, it always works.

The patches are annoying though. Maybe we need some equivalent of
MODPY_BIN_ADJ for bash?

bash script in OpenBSD ports (was Re: [New] nnn-1.7)

[Daniel Jakots]

On Sun, 6 May 2018 12:08:01 +0100, Stuart Henderson
 wrote:

> I'm no fan of this:
> 
> #!/usr/bin/env bash
> 
> It's not deterministic (relies on the user's PATH being set in a
> certain way), I would normally patch these to use
> ${LOCALBASE}/bin/bash like you had in earlier versions of your port.

We discussed this in Nantes. The reason of using env is that it's
portable so you can upstream the patch.

The current situation sucks that depending on who you ask you get a
different answer :(

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2018/05/06 00:01, Ljuba Nedeljkovic wrote:
> Attached is the port of nnn, version 1.8. Upstream is releasing
> source tarball as a formal/proper release so GH_* are gone.
> Patch (present in previous port submissions) is also gone since
> upstream fixed portability issue with shell script.
> 
> Tests/comments.suggestions are welcome.

I'm no fan of this:

#!/usr/bin/env bash

It's not deterministic (relies on the user's PATH being set in a certain
way), I would normally patch these to use ${LOCALBASE}/bin/bash like you had
in earlier versions of your port.

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[Klemens Nanni]

On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 12:01:11AM +0200, Ljuba Nedeljkovic wrote:
> Attached is the port of nnn, version 1.8. Upstream is releasing
> source tarball as a formal/proper release so GH_* are gone.
> Patch (present in previous port submissions) is also gone since
> upstream fixed portability issue with shell script.
Looks good except for missing whitspaces around = at MASTER_SITES, which
also goes below WANTLIB.

OK to import with that fixed?

> Tests/comments.suggestions are welcome.
Still works for me on amd64.

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[Ljuba Nedeljkovic]

Attached is the port of nnn, version 1.8. Upstream is releasing
source tarball as a formal/proper release so GH_* are gone.
Patch (present in previous port submissions) is also gone since
upstream fixed portability issue with shell script.

Tests/comments.suggestions are welcome.

-ljuba

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:41 PM, Klemens Nanni  wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 10:27:34PM +0200, Ljuba Nedeljkovic wrote:
> > > tl;dr: A pull request to create the asset automatically with Travic CI
> > > is welcome. Neither do I use Github, nor do I know shit about Travis.
> > >
> > > Ljuba, can you do that?
> >
> > Yes
> 1.8 is out with stable release tarballs:
>
> https://github.com/jarun/nnn/releases
>



-- 
If you wish to live wisely,
ignore sayings -- including this one.


nnn-1.8.tar.gz
Description: application/gzip

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[Ljuba Nedeljkovic]

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Klemens Nanni  wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 01:35:35PM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 04 2018, Ljuba Nedeljkovic  wrote:
>> > Ping.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Klemens Nanni  wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:37:22AM +0100, Ljuba Nedeljkovic wrote:
>> >>> Please find attached updated port's tarball with suggested fixes.  One
>> >>> deviation from kn's tarball is removal of `patches/patch-nlay` file and
>> >>> doing shebang fix using LOCALBASE with `post-extract` target.  Said
>> >>> patch leaves literal `#!${LOCALBASE}/bin/bash` in installed `nlay`
>> >>> script and breaks it.
>> >> Not a fan of modyfing WRKSRC "manually", we have patches and SUBST_CMD
>> >> for that. You'd simply patch LOCALBASE into the shebang and later do
>> >>
>> >> pre-configure:
>> >> ${SUBST_CMD} ${WRKSRC}/nlay
>> >>
>> >> I'm happy to import your latest tarball with that, OK anyone?
>>
>> Looks good to me, however I'd like us to stop importing ports using
>> GH_*.  Upstream already uses publishes release assets:
>>
>>   https://github.com/jarun/nnn/releases
>>
>> Could someone get in touch with them and ask them to publish proper
>> source tarballs?
> I had a lengthy email conversation with upstream about it.
>
> tl;dr: A pull request to create the asset automatically with Travic CI
> is welcome. Neither do I use Github, nor do I know shit about Travis.
>
> Ljuba, can you do that?

Yes



-- 
If you wish to live wisely,
ignore sayings -- including this one.

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[Klemens Nanni]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 01:35:35PM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04 2018, Ljuba Nedeljkovic  wrote:
> > Ping.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Klemens Nanni  wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:37:22AM +0100, Ljuba Nedeljkovic wrote:
> >>> Please find attached updated port's tarball with suggested fixes.  One
> >>> deviation from kn's tarball is removal of `patches/patch-nlay` file and
> >>> doing shebang fix using LOCALBASE with `post-extract` target.  Said
> >>> patch leaves literal `#!${LOCALBASE}/bin/bash` in installed `nlay`
> >>> script and breaks it.
> >> Not a fan of modyfing WRKSRC "manually", we have patches and SUBST_CMD
> >> for that. You'd simply patch LOCALBASE into the shebang and later do
> >>
> >> pre-configure:
> >> ${SUBST_CMD} ${WRKSRC}/nlay
> >>
> >> I'm happy to import your latest tarball with that, OK anyone?
> 
> Looks good to me, however I'd like us to stop importing ports using
> GH_*.  Upstream already uses publishes release assets:
> 
>   https://github.com/jarun/nnn/releases
> 
> Could someone get in touch with them and ask them to publish proper
> source tarballs?
I had a lengthy email conversation with upstream about it.

tl;dr: A pull request to create the asset automatically with Travic CI
is welcome. Neither do I use Github, nor do I know shit about Travis.

Ljuba, can you do that?

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[Ljuba Nedeljkovic]

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas  
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04 2018, Ljuba Nedeljkovic  wrote:
>> Ping.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Klemens Nanni  wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:37:22AM +0100, Ljuba Nedeljkovic wrote:
 Please find attached updated port's tarball with suggested fixes.  One
 deviation from kn's tarball is removal of `patches/patch-nlay` file and
 doing shebang fix using LOCALBASE with `post-extract` target.  Said
 patch leaves literal `#!${LOCALBASE}/bin/bash` in installed `nlay`
 script and breaks it.
>>> Not a fan of modyfing WRKSRC "manually", we have patches and SUBST_CMD
>>> for that. You'd simply patch LOCALBASE into the shebang and later do
>>>
>>> pre-configure:
>>> ${SUBST_CMD} ${WRKSRC}/nlay
>>>
>>> I'm happy to import your latest tarball with that, OK anyone?
>
> Looks good to me, however I'd like us to stop importing ports using
> GH_*.  Upstream already uses publishes release assets:
>
>   https://github.com/jarun/nnn/releases
>
> Could someone get in touch with them and ask them to publish proper
> source tarballs?

I did ask them to release the source code as a proper tarball three weeks ago
and it does not seem likely to happen before the next release (1.8) which brings
fixes regarding dependencies and portability issues. I will reiterate
the request
but would not count on proper release tarball for current version.

best

>
> --
> jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF  DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE



-- 
If you wish to live wisely,
ignore sayings -- including this one.

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[Jeremie Courreges-Anglas]

On Wed, Apr 04 2018, Ljuba Nedeljkovic  wrote:
> Ping.
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Klemens Nanni  wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:37:22AM +0100, Ljuba Nedeljkovic wrote:
>>> Please find attached updated port's tarball with suggested fixes.  One
>>> deviation from kn's tarball is removal of `patches/patch-nlay` file and
>>> doing shebang fix using LOCALBASE with `post-extract` target.  Said
>>> patch leaves literal `#!${LOCALBASE}/bin/bash` in installed `nlay`
>>> script and breaks it.
>> Not a fan of modyfing WRKSRC "manually", we have patches and SUBST_CMD
>> for that. You'd simply patch LOCALBASE into the shebang and later do
>>
>> pre-configure:
>> ${SUBST_CMD} ${WRKSRC}/nlay
>>
>> I'm happy to import your latest tarball with that, OK anyone?

Looks good to me, however I'd like us to stop importing ports using
GH_*.  Upstream already uses publishes release assets:

  https://github.com/jarun/nnn/releases

Could someone get in touch with them and ask them to publish proper
source tarballs?

-- 
jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF  DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[Ljuba Nedeljkovic]

Ping.

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Klemens Nanni  wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:37:22AM +0100, Ljuba Nedeljkovic wrote:
>> Please find attached updated port's tarball with suggested fixes.  One
>> deviation from kn's tarball is removal of `patches/patch-nlay` file and
>> doing shebang fix using LOCALBASE with `post-extract` target.  Said
>> patch leaves literal `#!${LOCALBASE}/bin/bash` in installed `nlay`
>> script and breaks it.
> Not a fan of modyfing WRKSRC "manually", we have patches and SUBST_CMD
> for that. You'd simply patch LOCALBASE into the shebang and later do
>
> pre-configure:
> ${SUBST_CMD} ${WRKSRC}/nlay
>
> I'm happy to import your latest tarball with that, OK anyone?



-- 
If you wish to live wisely,
ignore sayings -- including this one.

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[Ljuba Nedeljkovic]

Fixed as suggested.

Thanks,
-ljuba

On 14.03, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:37:22AM +0100, Ljuba Nedeljkovic wrote:
> > Please find attached updated port's tarball with suggested fixes.  One
> > deviation from kn's tarball is removal of `patches/patch-nlay` file and
> > doing shebang fix using LOCALBASE with `post-extract` target.  Said
> > patch leaves literal `#!${LOCALBASE}/bin/bash` in installed `nlay`
> > script and breaks it.
> Not a fan of modyfing WRKSRC "manually", we have patches and SUBST_CMD
> for that. You'd simply patch LOCALBASE into the shebang and later do
> 
>   pre-configure:
>   ${SUBST_CMD} ${WRKSRC}/nlay
> 
> I'm happy to import your latest tarball with that, OK anyone?


nnn-1.7.tar.gz
Description: Binary data

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[Klemens Nanni]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:37:22AM +0100, Ljuba Nedeljkovic wrote:
> Please find attached updated port's tarball with suggested fixes.  One
> deviation from kn's tarball is removal of `patches/patch-nlay` file and
> doing shebang fix using LOCALBASE with `post-extract` target.  Said
> patch leaves literal `#!${LOCALBASE}/bin/bash` in installed `nlay`
> script and breaks it.
Not a fan of modyfing WRKSRC "manually", we have patches and SUBST_CMD
for that. You'd simply patch LOCALBASE into the shebang and later do

pre-configure:
${SUBST_CMD} ${WRKSRC}/nlay

I'm happy to import your latest tarball with that, OK anyone?

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[mitchell wodach]

builds and works on amd64.

Mitch

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 8:37 PM, Ljuba Nedeljkovic <ljuba@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Please find attached updated port's tarball with suggested fixes.  One
> deviation from kn's tarball is removal of `patches/patch-nlay` file and
> doing shebang fix using LOCALBASE with `post-extract` target.  Said
> patch leaves literal `#!${LOCALBASE}/bin/bash` in installed `nlay`
> script and breaks it.
>
> Thanks everyone for taking time to review and advise the work.  Special
> thanks to kn@ for coaching and guidance that made this first attempt
> at porting software to OpenBSD pretty painless.
>
> Best,
> -ljuba
>
> On 13.03, Klemens Nanni wrote:
>> From: Klemens Nanni <k...@openbsd.org>
>> To: Ljuba Nedeljkovic <ljuba@gmail.com>
>> Cc:
>> Bcc:
>> Subject: Re: [New] nnn-1.7
>> Reply-To:
>> In-Reply-To: <20180311203948.wqkdu5kxbhlrg...@lada.probisvet.io>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 09:39:48PM +0100, Ljuba Nedeljkovic wrote:
>> > On 10.03, mitchell wodach wrote:
>> > > I get this error when I run "make test"
>> > >
>> > > openbsdcurrent# make test
>> > > ===>  Regression tests for nnn-1.7
>> > > gmake: *** No rule to make target 'test'.  Stop.
>> > > *** Error 2 in . (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:2777
>> > > '/usr/ports/pobj/nnn-1.7/.test_done')
>> > > *** Error 1 in /usr/ports/myshit/sysutils/nnn
>> > > (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:2419 'test')
>> > >
>> > > Try adding NO_TEST=Yes. to your Makefile
>> >
>> > Fixed.  New tarball is attached to mail with most remarks.
>> Almost there. With GH_* set you can leave DISTNAME as described in
>> Makefile.template or bsd.port.mk(5) for that matter.
>>
>> See my attached tarball fixing this besides some whitespace issues and
>> other small nits; I've also taken care of the completion scripts.
>>
>> /usr/ports/infrastructure/bin/portcheck also tells if your port seems
>> fine, in that case it would warn you about an empty line in PLIST.
>
>

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[Ljuba Nedeljkovic]

Hello,

Please find attached updated port's tarball with suggested fixes.  One
deviation from kn's tarball is removal of `patches/patch-nlay` file and
doing shebang fix using LOCALBASE with `post-extract` target.  Said
patch leaves literal `#!${LOCALBASE}/bin/bash` in installed `nlay`
script and breaks it.

Thanks everyone for taking time to review and advise the work.  Special
thanks to kn@ for coaching and guidance that made this first attempt
at porting software to OpenBSD pretty painless.

Best,
-ljuba

On 13.03, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> From: Klemens Nanni <k...@openbsd.org>
> To: Ljuba Nedeljkovic <ljuba@gmail.com>
> Cc: 
> Bcc: 
> Subject: Re: [New] nnn-1.7
> Reply-To: 
> In-Reply-To: <20180311203948.wqkdu5kxbhlrg...@lada.probisvet.io>
> 
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 09:39:48PM +0100, Ljuba Nedeljkovic wrote:
> > On 10.03, mitchell wodach wrote:
> > > I get this error when I run "make test"
> > > 
> > > openbsdcurrent# make test
> > > ===>  Regression tests for nnn-1.7
> > > gmake: *** No rule to make target 'test'.  Stop.
> > > *** Error 2 in . (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:2777
> > > '/usr/ports/pobj/nnn-1.7/.test_done')
> > > *** Error 1 in /usr/ports/myshit/sysutils/nnn
> > > (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:2419 'test')
> > > 
> > > Try adding NO_TEST=Yes. to your Makefile
> > 
> > Fixed.  New tarball is attached to mail with most remarks.
> Almost there. With GH_* set you can leave DISTNAME as described in
> Makefile.template or bsd.port.mk(5) for that matter.
> 
> See my attached tarball fixing this besides some whitespace issues and
> other small nits; I've also taken care of the completion scripts.
> 
> /usr/ports/infrastructure/bin/portcheck also tells if your port seems
> fine, in that case it would warn you about an empty line in PLIST.




nnn-1.7.tar.gz
Description: Binary data

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[Klemens Nanni]

From: Klemens Nanni <k...@openbsd.org>
To: Ljuba Nedeljkovic <ljuba@gmail.com>
Cc: 
Bcc: 
Subject: Re: [New] nnn-1.7
Reply-To: 
In-Reply-To: <20180311203948.wqkdu5kxbhlrg...@lada.probisvet.io>

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 09:39:48PM +0100, Ljuba Nedeljkovic wrote:
> On 10.03, mitchell wodach wrote:
> > I get this error when I run "make test"
> > 
> > openbsdcurrent# make test
> > ===>  Regression tests for nnn-1.7
> > gmake: *** No rule to make target 'test'.  Stop.
> > *** Error 2 in . (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:2777
> > '/usr/ports/pobj/nnn-1.7/.test_done')
> > *** Error 1 in /usr/ports/myshit/sysutils/nnn
> > (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:2419 'test')
> > 
> > Try adding NO_TEST=Yes. to your Makefile
> 
> Fixed.  New tarball is attached to mail with most remarks.
Almost there. With GH_* set you can leave DISTNAME as described in
Makefile.template or bsd.port.mk(5) for that matter.

See my attached tarball fixing this besides some whitespace issues and
other small nits; I've also taken care of the completion scripts.

/usr/ports/infrastructure/bin/portcheck also tells if your port seems
fine, in that case it would warn you about an empty line in PLIST.


nnn.tgz
Description: Binary data

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[Ljuba Nedeljkovic]

On 10.03, mitchell wodach wrote:
> I get this error when I run "make test"
> 
> openbsdcurrent# make test
> ===>  Regression tests for nnn-1.7
> gmake: *** No rule to make target 'test'.  Stop.
> *** Error 2 in . (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:2777
> '/usr/ports/pobj/nnn-1.7/.test_done')
> *** Error 1 in /usr/ports/myshit/sysutils/nnn
> (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:2419 'test')
> 
> Try adding NO_TEST=Yes. to your Makefile

Fixed.  New tarball is attached to mail with most remarks.

> 
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Ljuba Nedeljkovic  
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Attached is the port of nnn, "The missing terminal file browser for X"
> >
> > Apart from development machine (amd64) it was tested on clean base
> > OpenBSD install also on amd64.  Additional tests/comments/ok would be
> > highly appreciated.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -ljuba

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[Ljuba Nedeljkovic]

Thank you for taking time to look into this.
On 10.03, mitchell wodach wrote:
> change ncurses to curses in you WANTLIB.
> 
> Mitch
> 

Fixed

> 
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Klemens Nanni  wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:49:51PM +0100, Ljuba Nedeljkovic wrote:
> >> Attached is the port of nnn, "The missing terminal file browser for X"
> >>
> >> Apart from development machine (amd64) it was tested on clean base
> >> OpenBSD install also on amd64.  Additional tests/comments/ok would be
> >> highly appreciated.
> > COMMENT starts with an upper case letter.
> >
> > As a github project without proper release tarballs, please use GH_*.
> > Can you communicate with upstream to provide stable release tarballs?
> > They're already packaging for linux, so this shouldn't take much effort.
> >
> > The license marker is missing.
> >
> > WRK{DIST,SRC,BUILD} can go once GH_* is set.
> >
> > PLIST contains an empty line.
> >
> > Sources provide shell completions, what about packaging them as well?
> >
> > There is no need for patch-Makefile, you can pass these variables in
> > various ways.
> >
> > For replacing the shebang please see LOCALBASE in bsd.port.mk(5). This
> > also implies a missing RDEP on shells/bash.
> >
> > https://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/guide.html is helpful in getting these
> > fixed, but you can also look at other ports.
> >

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[mitchell wodach]

change ncurses to curses in you WANTLIB.

Mitch


On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Klemens Nanni  wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:49:51PM +0100, Ljuba Nedeljkovic wrote:
>> Attached is the port of nnn, "The missing terminal file browser for X"
>>
>> Apart from development machine (amd64) it was tested on clean base
>> OpenBSD install also on amd64.  Additional tests/comments/ok would be
>> highly appreciated.
> COMMENT starts with an upper case letter.
>
> As a github project without proper release tarballs, please use GH_*.
> Can you communicate with upstream to provide stable release tarballs?
> They're already packaging for linux, so this shouldn't take much effort.
>
> The license marker is missing.
>
> WRK{DIST,SRC,BUILD} can go once GH_* is set.
>
> PLIST contains an empty line.
>
> Sources provide shell completions, what about packaging them as well?
>
> There is no need for patch-Makefile, you can pass these variables in
> various ways.
>
> For replacing the shebang please see LOCALBASE in bsd.port.mk(5). This
> also implies a missing RDEP on shells/bash.
>
> https://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/guide.html is helpful in getting these
> fixed, but you can also look at other ports.
>

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[Klemens Nanni]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:49:51PM +0100, Ljuba Nedeljkovic wrote:
> Attached is the port of nnn, "The missing terminal file browser for X"
> 
> Apart from development machine (amd64) it was tested on clean base
> OpenBSD install also on amd64.  Additional tests/comments/ok would be
> highly appreciated.
COMMENT starts with an upper case letter.

As a github project without proper release tarballs, please use GH_*.
Can you communicate with upstream to provide stable release tarballs?
They're already packaging for linux, so this shouldn't take much effort.

The license marker is missing.

WRK{DIST,SRC,BUILD} can go once GH_* is set.

PLIST contains an empty line.

Sources provide shell completions, what about packaging them as well?

There is no need for patch-Makefile, you can pass these variables in
various ways.

For replacing the shebang please see LOCALBASE in bsd.port.mk(5). This
also implies a missing RDEP on shells/bash.

https://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/guide.html is helpful in getting these
fixed, but you can also look at other ports.

Re: [New] nnn-1.7

[mitchell wodach]

I get this error when I run "make test"

openbsdcurrent# make test
===>  Regression tests for nnn-1.7
gmake: *** No rule to make target 'test'.  Stop.
*** Error 2 in . (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:2777
'/usr/ports/pobj/nnn-1.7/.test_done')
*** Error 1 in /usr/ports/myshit/sysutils/nnn
(/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:2419 'test')

Try adding NO_TEST=Yes. to your Makefile

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Ljuba Nedeljkovic  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Attached is the port of nnn, "The missing terminal file browser for X"
>
> Apart from development machine (amd64) it was tested on clean base
> OpenBSD install also on amd64.  Additional tests/comments/ok would be
> highly appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
> -ljuba

[New] nnn-1.7

[Ljuba Nedeljkovic]

Hello,

Attached is the port of nnn, "The missing terminal file browser for X"

Apart from development machine (amd64) it was tested on clean base
OpenBSD install also on amd64.  Additional tests/comments/ok would be
highly appreciated.

Cheers,
-ljuba


nnn-1.7.tar.gz
Description: application/gzip