Home | Docs | Forums | Lists | Bugs | Planet | Store | GMN | Get Gentoo!
Not eligible to see or edit group visibility for this bug.
View Bug Activity | Format For Printing | XML | Clone This Bug
Hi there, This is an ebuild for a Red Black balanced binary tree library. As described on this web site: http://libredblack.sourceforge.net/ I think this belongs in dev-libs/libredblack. This is my first ebuild. Hope it's OK. Cheers, Dan
Created an attachment (id=9693) [details] An ebuild for a Red Black balanced Binary tree library, version 1.2
Hi Daniel. Thanks for a submission! I have processed and committed the ebuild. Please test. Few questions: 1. the sourcefoorge page actually shows package license as LGPL, not GPL. The COPYING file installed in docs also contains LGPL text. How did you pick GPL? Now the LICENSE lists LGPL-2.1. 2. I see you added RESTRICT="nomirror", what was the reason? The license allows redistribution and mirroring the source should actually reduce the load on the package creator's server (not that it matter in this case - it is kept on sourceforge anyway, but still usually its better to mirror). George
Hi George WRT Question 1, I guess I didn't check that well enough. You're quite right, it should be LGPL. Thanks. WRT Question 2. I didn't understand the keyword "nomirror". From the man page, I assumed it meant that the sources weren't located on the gentoo mirrors. From your comments I'm guessing that it actually means the sources *can't* be mirrored. So I guess that keyword can be removed from the ebuild. Cheers, Dan
stable
Created an attachment (id=21631) [details] New version Just updated the name - installs correctly. (On my machine at least)
Created an attachment (id=21632) [details] New version of libredblack - 1.3 New version of libredblack.
Attaching the ebuild screwed up the first time. ( application/octet-stream should have been text/plain )
Hi Daniel. Thanks for an update.! Looking good, I have bumped the version, please test. Two (minor) things though: 1. It is better to open a new bug, as it (update) is a new action. 2. If it is sufficient to rust rename an ebuild it is not necessary (and is better not) to attach an ebuild. If you do so I still have to check your attachment to see if there really is nothing new :). George
No problemo. I'll keep those points in mind next time. I'm not a frequent ebuilder. I'll let you know if I find any problems with it. Cheers, Dan
