113535 – xmlindent-0.2.17 (new ebuild)

Bug 113535 - xmlindent-0.2.17 (new ebuild)

Summary: xmlindent-0.2.17 (new ebuild)

Status:	RESOLVED FIXED

Alias:	None

Product:	Gentoo Linux
Classification:	Unclassified
Component:	New packages (show other bugs)
Hardware:	All Linux

Importance:	High enhancement (vote)
Assignee:	Tom Martin (RETIRED)

URL:	http://xmlindent.sourceforge.net/
Whiteboard:
Keywords:	EBUILD

Depends on:
Blocks:

Reported:	2005-11-25 00:27 UTC by Sascha Herrmann
Modified:	2006-05-10 09:14 UTC (History)
CC List:	2 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required:	---

Attachments
ebuild for xmlindent-0.2.17 (xmlindent-0.2.17.ebuild,545 bytes, text/plain) 2005-11-25 00:29 UTC, Sascha Herrmann	Details
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Description Sascha Herrmann 2005-11-25 00:27:51 UTC

Hi folks,

i'd like to contribute a small ebuild for building xmlindent.

XML Indent is a XML stream reformatter written in ANSI C. It is analogous to GNU
indent.

I suggest app-text/xmlindent as package location.

Thanks.
bye fox

Comment 1 Sascha Herrmann 2005-11-25 00:29:14 UTC

Created attachment 73551 [details]
ebuild for xmlindent-0.2.17

Comment 2 Tom Martin (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2005-11-27 03:18:18 UTC

Does xmlindent do anything GNU indent doesn't?

Comment 3 Sascha Herrmann 2005-11-28 04:53:08 UTC

As i wrote before xmlindent indents XML Files while GNU indent "only" reformats 
C/C++ code files! So as you can imagine both programs do completly different 
work (only using the same ideas)!

Comment 4 Tom Martin (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2005-11-28 13:43:43 UTC

Cool. I wasn't sure :)

I'll try to add it to the try sometime this week.

Comment 5 Tom Martin (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2006-01-06 08:58:10 UTC

Sorry, I forgot to close this.

Comment 6 Horst Schirmeier 2006-05-09 16:35:07 UTC

Just curious. Why did you remove the ~x86 keyword Sascha proposed, and used ~amd64 ~sparc instead? He obviously tested his ebuild, so I see no reason why it should not go into x86 testing.

Comment 7 Tom Martin (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2006-05-10 09:14:59 UTC

(In reply to comment #6)
> Just curious. Why did you remove the ~x86 keyword Sascha proposed, and used
> ~amd64 ~sparc instead? He obviously tested his ebuild, so I see no reason why
> it should not go into x86 testing.
> 

Gentoo policy is not to mark on any archs that you, the committer, can't test on. I can't test on x86 (and I haven't had the chance to set up a 32 bit chroot on my amd64), so I can't keyword.

If you'd like this keyworded x86, please file a bug assigned to x86@gentoo.org.

Thanks :)