Bug 9245 – Upgrade: ncurses-5.3.0.ebuild

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Description Rigo 2002-10-17 06:34:19 UTC]

diff -ur ncurses-5.2.20020511-r2.ebuild ncurses-5.3.0.ebuild 
--- ncurses-5.2.20020511-r2.ebuild	2002-10-17 12:35:04.000000000 +0200
+++ ncurses-5.3.0.ebuild	2002-10-17 12:52:24.000000000 +0200
@@ -10,11 +10,7 @@
 
 S=${WORKDIR}/${PN}-${MY_PV}
 DESCRIPTION="Linux console display libarary"
-SRC_URI="ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/${PN}/${PN}-${MY_PV}.tar.gz
-	http://www.ibiblio.org/gentoo/distfiles/${PN}-${PV}.diff.bz2"
-	#ftp://dickey.his.com/${PN}/${PV}/patch-${MY_PV}-20020427.sh.gz
-	#ftp://dickey.his.com/${PN}/${PV}/${PN}-${MY_PV}-20020429.patch.gz
-	#ftp://dickey.his.com/${PN}/${PV}/${PN}-${MY_PV}-20020511.patch.gz"
+SRC_URI="ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/${PN}/${PN}-${MY_PV}.tar.gz"
 HOMEPAGE="http://www.gnu.org/software/ncurses/ncurses.html"
 # bzip2 is needed to apply the patch. added 20020609 danarmak.
 
@@ -29,18 +25,7 @@
 
 
 src_unpack() {
-
-	unpack ${PN}-${MY_PV}.tar.gz
-	
-	#this is how the gentoo patch was created.  avoids a dependency
-	#on sharutils for uudecode :/
-	#( zcat ${DISTDIR}/patch-${MY_PV}-20020427.sh.gz | sh ) || die
-	#( zcat ${DISTDIR}/${PN}-${MY_PV}-20020429.patch.gz | patch -p1 ) || die
-	#( zcat ${DISTDIR}/${PN}-${MY_PV}-20020511.patch.gz | patch -p1 ) || die
-	#this is the generated patch..
-	# bzcat doesn't always exist (i.e. making stage1), bunzip2 is safer
-	# Gerk - June 26 2002
-	( cd ${S}; bunzip2 -c ${DISTDIR}/${PN}-${PV}.diff.bz2 | patch -p1 ) || die
+	unpack ${A}
 
 	cd ${S}
 	# Do not compile tests
@@ -60,13 +45,8 @@
 		--with-rcs-ids \
 		${myconf} || die
 
-	# this patch is completely invalid.  whoever was responsible for
-	# generating it for the previous snapshots, please investigate with
-	# regards to this current snapshot.
-	#	patch -p1 <${FILESDIR}/ncurses-5.2.20020511-gcc31.patch
-
 	#emake still doesn't work circa 25 Mar 2002
-	make || die
+	emake || die
 }
 
 src_install() {

[Comment 1 Rigo 2002-10-17 06:35:24 UTC]

Created attachment 4778 [details]
ncurses-5.3.0.ebuild

[Comment 2 Nick Hadaway 2002-10-17 12:59:24 UTC]

I have added ncurses-5.3 to portage.  It is currently masked.  Please test and 
let me know if you experience any problems or any successes for that matter :)

For any devs that poke into this bug, lets make sure to test it from a fresh 
build as well.

[Comment 3 Nicholas Jones (RETIRED) 2002-10-19 22:30:12 UTC]

Doesn't like -j8 on uniproc.

[Comment 4 Martin Schlemmer (RETIRED) 2002-10-19 22:45:16 UTC]

Wont argue there, but otherwise it looks fine.

[Comment 5 SpanKY 2002-10-20 13:58:24 UTC]

*** Bug 9395 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Comment 6 synonymousca 2002-10-22 21:45:23 UTC]

Works fine for me.

Probably worth looking into the threads on the forums about downgrading from 5.3
to 5.2 causing worlds of trouble, if that hasn't already been done, though.

[Comment 7 synonymousca 2002-10-22 22:03:36 UTC]

Bug 9517, if you prefer not to leave Bugzilla - sorry for the extra message.

[Comment 8 Nick Hadaway 2002-11-06 02:09:28 UTC]

When would be the proper time to unmask ncurses-5.3?
Should the ebuild be updated to depend on >=sys-apps/portage-2.0.43 so library 
symlinks get created correctly?

[Comment 9 Martin Schlemmer (RETIRED) 2002-11-07 01:15:25 UTC]

I would say unmask, and then put ~ in KEYWORDS.  The portage dep sounds fine.

[Comment 10 Nick Hadaway 2002-11-10 11:04:20 UTC]

ncurses has been unmasked and marked unstable

[Comment 11 Nick Hadaway 2002-11-25 17:19:38 UTC]

I have heard lots of good reports with the new ncurses... how long before we 
should mark stable?

[Comment 12 Nick Hadaway 2002-12-16 12:45:14 UTC]

ncurses-5.3 is currently marked stable