| Summary: | net-misc/sitecopy-0.16.6_p1 released | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis (RETIRED) <arfrever> |
| Component: | New packages | Assignee: | No maintainer - Look at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Proxy_Maintainers if you want to take care of it <maintainer-needed> |
| Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | CC: | bangert, jer, radhermit, volkmar |
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Attachments: |
First draft for sitecopy-0.16.6_p1 ebuild
Ebuild for sitecopy-0.16.6_p1 Patch 0.16.3_p17 > 0.16.6_p1 |
||
|
Description
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis (RETIRED)
2008-09-07 18:39:04 UTC
Created attachment 165839 [details]
First draft for sitecopy-0.16.6_p1 ebuild
I've wrote an ebuild based on sitecopy-0.16.3_p17 ebuild. There are a few things I'm not sure of :
- some use flags have been set for sitecopy-0.16.3_p17 ebuild but are not use flags of sitecopy but neon's ones. It is only checking if the use flag is set for neon. In my opinion, these use flags are useless but I don't know gentoo's policy about this. That's concerning expat, ssl and zlib.
- there is something about openssl/gnutls choice and xml2/expat choice. First one only check choice made for neon (concerning >=neon-0.28). Second one is more complicated and I've not really understand how it is working. Expat is used via neon but xml2 is used directly by sitecopy. I don't understand also why libxml2 is not a dependency if xml2 flag is on.
- like for libxml2 dependency, I have not found a explicit list of dependencies. I'm even not sure of net-misc/netkit-rsh dependency.
- in last ebuild there was a gentoo patch to make sitecopy working with neon up to 0.29 (sitecopy was only accepting very old versions). It was quite dirty because it was only changing accepted versions but not source code. As sitecopy is now accepting neon up to 0.28, the higher version in portage, I think this patch is useless.
Sitecopy is suffering of a lack of documentation and that is not helping to writing an ebuild but this is a first working step. I will try to find answers about the different questions and propose updated ebuilds.
(In reply to comment #1) > - in last ebuild there was a gentoo patch to make sitecopy working with neon > up to 0.29 (sitecopy was only accepting very old versions). It was quite > dirty because it was only changing accepted versions but not source code. As > sitecopy is now accepting neon up to 0.28, the higher version in portage, I > think this patch is useless. Neon 0.29 should be backward-compatible with Neon 0.28, so the patch which allows Neon 0.29 is still needed. I don't understand why we have to patch sitecopy to accept neon-0.29 as the latest neon release is 0.28.3 according to neon website. That sounds weird for me. (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > - in last ebuild there was a gentoo patch to make sitecopy working with neon > > up to 0.29 (sitecopy was only accepting very old versions). It was quite > > dirty because it was only changing accepted versions but not source code. As > > sitecopy is now accepting neon up to 0.28, the higher version in portage, I > > think this patch is useless. > > Neon 0.29 should be backward-compatible with Neon 0.28, so the patch which > allows Neon 0.29 is still needed. > Created attachment 168440 [details]
Ebuild for sitecopy-0.16.6_p1
I took some time to improve the ebuild and I made some choices :
- expat/libxml choice has not be done into sitecopy as neon already does it (and sitecopy use neon for this)
- the same for ssl/gnutls
- zlib is not a use flag as it is also used via neon
I also add missing use flags (debug and threads) and some other small improvements (DEPEND/RDEPEND, ewarn message, ...).
In my opinion, this ebuild is ready to be tested.
Created attachment 168444 [details, diff]
Patch 0.16.3_p17 > 0.16.6_p1
Patch for ebuild in portage to last version.
so what is holding this up? *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 351637 *** FYI: Scanning over the patches here allowing for debug and thread (safety), I'm pretty sure the debug and thread (safety) configure options are on by default now. |