On Apr 10, 2017, at 05:57, Clemens Lang wrote:
>
>> In this situation, it would be better to use GitHub's older tarball URLs
>> which
>> can accept any filename, such as one that includes the name of the module.
>> See
>> for example my patch to add the fancyindex module here:
>>
>>
On 2017-04-10 02:41, Andrew Fernandes wrote:
> Andrew Fernandes (adfernandes) pushed a commit to branch master
> in repository macports-ports.
>
> https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/commit/717197f4a88e94d5c667c4797712d1b0daecfaf6
>
> The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master
On 10 Apr 2017, at 12:59, Clemens Lang wrote:
> It's up to you, really. pypi2port might be easier, because it auto-generates
> most
> of the boilerplate and is better tested, since most python ports use PyPI.
Ok, I just want to avoid having too much divergence between current
Hi,
- On 9 Apr, 2017, at 18:01, db iams...@gmail.com wrote:
> When writing a python port, what is best practice for one that's on both PyPI
> and GitHub, use pypi2port or portgroups github+python?
It's up to you, really. pypi2port might be easier, because it auto-generates
most
of the
Hi,
- On 9 Apr, 2017, at 00:25, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org wrote:
> Using GitHub archive URLs in this context is not optimal, because the filename
> only contains the module's version number. This will only keep working until
> one of the modules has a version number that one of
> On Mar 9, 2017, at 13:17, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
> Mojca Miklavec (mojca) pushed a commit to branch master
> in repository macports-ports.
>
>
> https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/commit/defbebe639cfdf1e4ce3504568835f4e00ac5f29
>
> The following commit(s) were