Hi Alessandro --
On 07/29/18 07:58, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
> 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).
>
Ports move at the speed at which they move. This is all best-effort and
we do the best we can. No one can give you a time-table on things.
With that said, barring some stylistic tweaks that I will take care of,
this is ok for me. So if another developer is willing to give me an ok,
I'll import it.
~Brian
> 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
>>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment