Gentle reminder.
I need a feedback on this port, because I would like to submit soon at
least other two Qflow's tools for which I have wip ports (and that
depend on abc).
On 07/28/18 09:43, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
> Hello Brian,
>
> On 07/28/18 03:29, Brian Callahan wrote:
> [...]
>> I think I forgot to mention this in my first email, but this needs
>> NO_TEST=Yes too.
> Sorry for that; it was in my local Makefile, but I forgot to add it to
> the tarball; fixed.
>
>> When I run abc -h, it identifies itself as "ABC 1.01" -- should that
>> be the proper name of the PKGNAME? Maybe something like
>> abc-1.01pl20180722 or abc-1.01.20180722? Presuming that upstream will
>> eventually crank the version number higher than 1.01?
> This is something I thought about... actually, from the code's history
> log, last time they bumped that revision number was in 2005, so I think
> it is no more used; on the other hand, it's true that the variables are
> still there and the version number appears in the program identification
> (both in the help message and when launching the executable).
>
> I let you decide. In attachment a new tarball with:
>
> DISTNAME = 1.01.20180722
>
> but please let me know if I should use a more specific combination of
> DISTNAME, PKGNAME, VERSION, RELEASE, ...
>
> On top of that, I submitted the patch upstream [1] and reported the
> compiler's warnings [2].
>
> [1] https://github.com/berkeley-abc/abc/issues/17
> [2] https://github.com/berkeley-abc/abc/issues/18
>
--
Alessandro DE LAURENZIS
[mailto:just22@atlantide.t28.net]
Web: http://www.atlantide.t28.net
LinkedIn: http://it.linkedin.com/in/delaurenzis
No comments:
Post a Comment