It would be better for all of us if you sent a complete port rather than
just a Makefile, since our feedback on the Makefile could very well
change other parts of a port (like, especially the pkg/PLIST).
Indeed, some of Klemens's feedback will change the resulting package.
~Brian
On 12/1/18 4:58 PM, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 04:24:26PM -0500, Charles A Daniels wrote:
>> This is my first time porting, so apologies in advance for anything I
>> might have missed. I've been working on a port of pcalc
>> (https://github.com/vapier/pcalc), and I think it's nearly ready,
>> however there are few remaining bits that I would appreciate some
>> guidance on before the port is ready to be committed.
>>
>> More general feedback on style or adherence to best practice is welcome
>> also, as I hope to package some other software in the near future.
> See http://openbsd.org/faq/ports/guide.html for extensive information.
>
>> The current state of my Makefile follows, annotated with comments
> Answers inline.
>
>> regarding issues I would like help with. As it stands, the port works,
>>
>> and the package can be built and installed, but the tests do
>>
>> not work.
> That's good, I suggest working through the feedback, cross-checking
> with other ports on topics you're unsure about and then send a proper
> tarball to the list so other people can test, once you're confident
> things work as expected.
>
>
>> # $OpenBSD: Makefile.template,v 1.78 2018/07/09 15:00:06 jca Exp $
>> # TODO: does the above need to be modified?
> No, CVS takes care of that.
>
>> V = 4
>> COMMENT = Programmers calculator, command line utility.
>> DISTNAME = pcalc-${V}
>> PKGNAME = pcalc-$V
> These are the same, thus PKGNAME is redundant.
> If the version is not used anywhere else, just drop V as well and use
> `DISTNAME = pcalc-4' directly.
>
>> GH_ACCOUNT = vapier
>> GH_PROJECT = pcalc
>> GH_TAGNAME = v4
> Either DISTNAME or GH_* is used, never both (is Makefile.template not
> clear enough about that?).
>
> Since their github offers unstable, automatically generated release
> tarballs only and the sourceforge page has no tarballs, GH_* should be
> used.
>
>> CATEGORIES = math
>> HOMEPAGE = http://pcalc.sourceforge.net/
> "NOTE: Moved to ..."
> Since we're using GH_*, HOMEPAGE can now be dropped as well as the ports
> framework will already set it to their github page.
>
>> MAINTAINER = Charles Daniels <charles@cdaniels.net>
> Glad to see you want to take care of the package and ensure it will stay
> up to date.
>
>> # TODO: is this the correct way to indicate licensing?
>> # License is GPLv2 only
> Yes, `# GPLv2' is fine, but you can double check if it's GPLv2+ or
> GPLv3(+) really.
>
>> # TODO: can GPLv2 packages be distributed on the CDROM?
> Yes.
>
>> PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM = Yes
>>
>> WANTLIB = c m
>>
>> # TODO: flex is also used - pretty sure this is part of the bison package?
> No, you can check with `pkg_info -L bison'. flex(1) is in base.
>
>> BUILD_DEPENDS = devel/bison
>>
>> # TODO: I think this is the "hardcoded paths" that portcheck reports - do
>> # these need to be changed?
> Yes, use ${LOCALBASE} here. Just look at how other ports do it and
> check bsd.port.mk(5) what this variable means.
>
>> MAKE_FLAGS = BINDIR=/usr/local/bin/
>> FAKE_FLAGS = BINDIR=/usr/local/bin/
>> TEST_FLAGS = BINDIR=/usr/local/bin/
>>
>> USE_GMAKE = Yes
>>
>> # TODO: currently broken, throws the error
>> #
>> # Provide an AUTOCONF_VERSION environment variable, please
> There are numerous examples in the tree that handle various different
> autoconf/automake use cases. I suggest checking them to see how it
> works.
>
>> # Not sure what the most correct way to handle this is, it doesn't look like
>> # there is a 'TEST_ENV', and even if so, how to determine the
> There is TEST_ENV as per bsd.port.mk(5).
>
>> AUTOCONF_VERSION
>> # value?
>> TEST_TARGET = check test
>>
>> # TODO: do I need to explicitly add autoconf to TEST_DEPENDS?
> No.
>
>> .include <bsd.port.mk>
No comments:
Post a Comment