Dmitry Marakasov píše v pá 21. 08. 2009 v 07:50 +0400:
[1] http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/sfp.patch
[2] http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/sfp.log
This looks good so far.
PS. Btw, SOURCEFORGE_EXTENDED and SOURCEFORGE_JP still use an old
scheme. Because of that SFE can no longer include
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:06:18 +0200
Pav Lucistnik p...@freebsd.org wrote:
Dmitry Marakasov píše v pá 21. 08. 2009 v 07:50 +0400:
[1] http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/sfp.patch
[2] http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/sfp.log
This looks good so far.
PS. Btw, SOURCEFORGE_EXTENDED and
* Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
[1] http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/sfp.patch
[2] http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/sfp.log
This looks good so far.
PS. Btw, SOURCEFORGE_EXTENDED and SOURCEFORGE_JP still use an old
scheme. Because of that SFE can no longer include SF, and
* Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
Once you have a patch, send it over for eyeball-review and approval.
Thanks for attacking this!
I've processed 321 of 418 ports. There are some casualities, namely:
- all octave-forge-* ports. These now require different subdirectories (see
[1]):
Dmitry Marakasov píše v pá 21. 08. 2009 v 22:12 +0400:
Which also worries me is that I'm going out of city till monday -
will it be OK to commit the patch this night? Well, it shouldn't
break anything not yet broken, but still. If it's ok, I'll commit
it in ~6hrs after finishing manual work
* Philip M. Gollucci (pgollu...@p6m7g8.com) wrote:
Rewriting this:
my $portname = `make -VPORTNAME`;
chomp $portname;
my $portname_lc = lc($portname);
my $portversion = `make -VPORTVERSION`;
chomp $portversion;
Like this, will help substantially by reducing make spawns by 1/2,
you'll
--On Wednesday, August 19, 2009 23:08:04 -0500 Philip M. Gollucci
pgollu...@p6m7g8.com wrote:
Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
[1] http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/sf.pl.txt
Awesome.
Rewriting this:
my $portname = `make -VPORTNAME`;
chomp $portname;
my $portname_lc = lc($portname);
my
* Paul Schmehl (pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com) wrote:
I've been following this discussion closely since several of my ports fetch
from Sourceforge. Is it safe to assume that some global solution will be
applied to the ports tree? Or are we maintainers going to need to submit PRs
for affected
Dmitry Marakasov píše v čt 20. 08. 2009 v 20:40 +0400:
* Paul Schmehl (pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com) wrote:
I've been following this discussion closely since several of my ports fetch
from Sourceforge. Is it safe to assume that some global solution will be
applied to the ports tree? Or
* Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
I've been following this discussion closely since several of my ports
fetch
from Sourceforge. Is it safe to assume that some global solution will be
applied to the ports tree? Or are we maintainers going to need to submit
PRs
for
Hi!
I've just discovered that even old ports hosted on SourceForge
were switched to the new file distribution scheme (i.e.
MASTER_SITE_SOURCEFORGE_PROJECT). Fetching from old urls result in
redirects, which means that these ports can now only be fetched
from our mirror. So we should switch to
Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
[1] http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/sf.pl.txt
Awesome.
Rewriting this:
my $portname = `make -VPORTNAME`;
chomp $portname;
my $portname_lc = lc($portname);
my $portversion = `make -VPORTVERSION`;
chomp $portversion;
Like this, will help substantially by reducing make
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
my @lines = lc `make -V PORTNAME -V PORTVERSION`;
oops
my @lines = map { chomp; lc } \
split /\n/, `make -V PORTNAME -V PORTVERSION`;
*sigh*
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B
13 matches
Mail list logo
