Created attachment 592022 [details] dunst-1.4.1.ebuild Hi! I updated the package to a current version. /Hund
Comment on attachment 592022 [details] dunst-1.4.1.ebuild No change compared to 1.3.2.
No change was needed. What now? Where always going to be stuck with an old version?
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=c159f2820ae8e6a1f6ebfa72e2609f3066f75630 commit c159f2820ae8e6a1f6ebfa72e2609f3066f75630 Author: Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2019-10-07 03:49:50 +0000 Commit: Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2019-10-07 03:51:17 +0000 x11-misc/dunst: Version 1.4.1 Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.76, Repoman-2.3.17 Fixes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/696876 Reported-by: Hund Signed-off-by: Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> x11-misc/dunst/Manifest | 1 + x11-misc/dunst/dunst-1.4.1.ebuild | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+)
I see. This needs to be documented, I was told to create a ticket and that's what I did, I still don't know what to do next time.
(In reply to Hund from comment #4) > I see. This needs to be documented, I was told to create a ticket and that's > what I did, I still don't know what to do next time. I am not sure what needs to be documented (privately or publicly). You reported a new version was out, and someone responded. All done. :-)
(In reply to Hund from comment #2) > No change was needed. What now? Where always going to be stuck with an old > version? Well, to get the new version installed, a simple copy of the old file would have done the trick, indeed, but you could have just mentioned that instead of attaching a renamed copy of 1.3.2 here. That said, in the 1.4.1 ebuild I reverted stable keywords, I changed the EAPI from 6 to 7, and cleaned up some whitespace issues: --- dunst-1.3.2.ebuild 2018-11-18 11:31:09.924751851 +0100 +++ dunst-1.4.1.ebuild 2019-10-07 05:51:17.650605075 +0200 @@ -1,8 +1,7 @@ -# Copyright 1999-2018 Gentoo Foundation +# Copyright 1999-2019 Gentoo Authors # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 -EAPI=6 - +EAPI=7 inherit toolchain-funcs DESCRIPTION="Customizable and lightweight notification-daemon" @@ -11,12 +10,11 @@ LICENSE="BSD" SLOT="0" -KEYWORDS="amd64 ~arm x86" +KEYWORDS="~amd64 ~arm ~x86" IUSE="dunstify" CDEPEND=" dev-libs/glib:2 - dev-libs/libxdg-basedir sys-apps/dbus x11-libs/cairo[X,glib] x11-libs/gdk-pixbuf @@ -32,7 +30,6 @@ dev-lang/perl virtual/pkgconfig " - RDEPEND="${CDEPEND}" src_prepare() {
(In reply to Jeroen Roovers from comment #6) > @@ -11,12 +10,11 @@ > > LICENSE="BSD" > SLOT="0" > -KEYWORDS="amd64 ~arm x86" > +KEYWORDS="~amd64 ~arm ~x86" > IUSE="dunstify" > > CDEPEND=" > dev-libs/glib:2 > - dev-libs/libxdg-basedir > sys-apps/dbus > x11-libs/cairo[X,glib] > x11-libs/gdk-pixbuf ...*and* I removed a superfluous dependency, as taken from the upstream change log. So not quite a straightforward ebuild copy.
I understand. It didn't look good that it got closed without any reason at first, you should have included a reason in the beginning. :) And did I even do it the correct way? I would really like to help with whatever little I can, but I find it difficult when there's no documentation.
