Dear Frank,
first of all, thanks a lot for doing the mass update of the number of
Perl modules.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Frank Schima wrote:
On Jul 23, 2014, at 9:20 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
One slightly easier step-by-step approach could be the following
1.) Replace
On Jul 24, 2014, at 12:43 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jul 23, 2014, at 9:31 AM, mo...@macports.org wrote:
--- trunk/dports/_resources/port1.0/group/perl5-1.0.tcl 2014-07-23
14:29:55 UTC (rev 122520)
+++
On 2014-7-24 01:20 , Mojca Miklavec wrote:
One slightly easier step-by-step approach could be the following
1.) Replace
perl5.branches 5.14 5.16 5.18
in all perl modules with
perl5.branches_blacklist 5.8 5.10 5.12
or to remove branche_blacklist altogether if the module builds
Hi all,
I am wondering if there is a well defined policy regarding maintainer ship for
new ports.
I understand that it is quite usual to assume maintainer ship when contributing
a new port and that nomantainer is more usual for abandoned ports. But is it
usual to commit new ports as with
On 7/24/14 4:25 AM, p...@macports.org wrote:
Hi all,
I am wondering if there is a well defined policy regarding maintainer ship
for new ports.
I understand that it is quite usual to assume maintainer ship when
contributing a new port and that nomantainer is more usual for abandoned
On Jul 24, 2014, at 7:13 AM, p...@macports.org wrote:
Revision
122588
Author
p...@macports.org
Date
2014-07-24 05:13:58 -0700 (Thu, 24 Jul 2014)
Log Message
zope-* : add modeline to all zope ports
But the zope ports I checked don't actually conform to the modeline. If you're
going to
On 24 Jul 2014, at 14:22, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org wrote:
On Jul 24, 2014, at 7:13 AM, p...@macports.org wrote:
Revision
122588
Author
p...@macports.org
Date
2014-07-24 05:13:58 -0700 (Thu, 24 Jul 2014)
Log Message
zope-* : add modeline to all zope ports
But the
On Jul 24, 2014, at 7:24 AM, p...@macports.org wrote:
On 24 Jul 2014, at 14:22, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org wrote:
On Jul 24, 2014, at 7:13 AM, p...@macports.org wrote:
Revision
122588
Author
p...@macports.org
Date
2014-07-24 05:13:58 -0700 (Thu, 24 Jul 2014)
Log
Do you also have the years when Apple made each of these versions its
system perl as well?
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Mark Anderson e...@emer.net wrote:
Yeah, I'm with Daniel here. I think we should only support the latest
version of Perl.
From perl.org: *We recommend that you always
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 4:18 PM, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jun 04, 2014, at 20:21, Eric Gallager wrote:
Wow, that looks a lot simpler than I thought that it would be... I was
expecting something like this would have to be fixed upstream by gcc,
because that is how they
On Jul 24, 2014, at 12:48 AM, Mojca Miklavec mo...@macports.org wrote:
So far I’m hitting a few bumps with p5.20-digest-sha1 [1] and p5.18-pdl not
compiling. I can’t even try p5.20-pdl until p5.20-digest-sha1 is fixed.
The digest-sha1 works for me, pdl takes a bit longer, but eventually
Hi all,
I am not a zope user, but I came across some problems with `zope-*` ports.
Looking a bit around I am wondering what might actually be the status and usage
of zope and related ports. The ports seem to have no maintainer already for
quite some while and most maintenance seem to be
Am 24.07.2014 um 18:50 schrieb p...@macports.org:
I am not a zope user, but I came across some problems with `zope-*` ports.
Looking a bit around I am wondering what might actually be the status and
usage of zope and related ports. The ports seem to have no maintainer already
for quite
David Evans writes:
On 7/24/14 4:25 AM, p...@macports.org wrote:
Hi all,
I am wondering if there is a well defined policy regarding maintainer ship
for new ports.
I understand that it is quite usual to assume maintainer ship when
contributing a new port and that nomantainer is more
On Jul 24, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Sean Farley s...@macports.org wrote:
Why not drop 'openmaintainer' and amend the community policy to have
every port be what we now call 'openmaintainer'? Furthermore, we could
set up a way for the listed port authors to be emailed when a port with
their name on
A compromise here could be, instead of getting rid of openmaintainer
entirely, or keeping it opt-in like it currently is, we could make it
opt-out instead. There are two ways we could do this:
1. When committing new ports submitted by users without commit access, make
it a policy to automatically
Daniel J. Luke writes:
On Jul 24, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Sean Farley s...@macports.org wrote:
Why not drop 'openmaintainer' and amend the community policy to have
every port be what we now call 'openmaintainer'? Furthermore, we could
set up a way for the listed port authors to be emailed when a
On Jul 24, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Sean Farley s...@macports.org wrote:
I, for one, appreciate the ability to specify which ports I don't care if
people apply patches to vs. ports where I'm very careful about
updating/keeping things from breaking.
Well, the problem is people still commit on
* On 24.07.2014 11:49 pm, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
Unless you've
left comments in your portfiles, then there's no auditable way to
maintain your ports if, say, you stop being a maintainer.
I can't parse this sentence. no auditable way what are you auditing?
Don't nitpick. :)
He means that there
Daniel J. Luke writes:
On Jul 24, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Sean Farley s...@macports.org wrote:
I, for one, appreciate the ability to specify which ports I don't care if
people apply patches to vs. ports where I'm very careful about
updating/keeping things from breaking.
Well, the problem is
Mihai Moldovan writes:
* On 24.07.2014 11:49 pm, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
Unless you've
left comments in your portfiles, then there's no auditable way to
maintain your ports if, say, you stop being a maintainer.
I can't parse this sentence. no auditable way what are you auditing?
Don't
21 matches
Mail list logo
