I'd just set REVISION=1 and drop the other REVISION-foo, but either way is ok
--
Sent from a phone, apologies for poor formatting.
On 25 January 2026 12:27:01 Stuart Cassoff <exokoide@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Built and tested ok with SWIG 4.2.1 and SWIG 4.4.1 on amd64 and i386.diff -Nurp /usr/ports/devel/subversion/Makefile ./Makefile--- /usr/ports/devel/subversion/Makefile Thu Jan 15 03:10:01 2026+++ ./Makefile Sun Jan 25 07:13:12 2026@@ -5,13 +5,15 @@ COMMENT-ruby= ruby interface to subversionCOMMENT-ap2= apache2 subversion modulesCOMMENT-gnome-keyring= GNOME keyring support for subversion+REVISION= 0+VERSION= 1.14.5DISTNAME= subversion-${VERSION:S/rc/-rc/}PKGNAME-main= subversion-${VERSION}-REVISION-main= 0+REVISION-main= 1PKGNAME-perl= p5-SVN-${VERSION}PKGNAME-python= py3-subversion-${VERSION}-REVISION-python= 0+REVISION-python= 1PKGNAME-ruby= ruby${MODRUBY_BINREV}-subversion-${VERSION}PKGNAME-ap2= ap2-subversion-${VERSION}PKGNAME-gnome-keyring= gnome-keyring-subversion-${VERSION}diff -Nurp /usr/ports/devel/subversion/patches/patch-subversion_bindings_swig_include_svn_types_swg ./patches/patch-subversion_bindings_swig_include_svn_types_swg--- /usr/ports/devel/subversion/patches/patch-subversion_bindings_swig_include_svn_types_swg Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969+++ ./patches/patch-subversion_bindings_swig_include_svn_types_swg Fri Jan 23 10:29:08 2026@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@+https://github.com/apache/subversion/commit/bf72420e86059a894fa3aacbbd6e3bee9286e46e+++Index: subversion/bindings/swig/include/svn_types.swg+--- subversion/bindings/swig/include/svn_types.swg.orig++++ subversion/bindings/swig/include/svn_types.swg+@@ -601,7 +601,7 @@ svn_ ## TYPE ## _swig_rb_closed(VALUE self)+ %typemap(in, noblock=1) apr_pool_t * {+ /* Verify that the user supplied a valid pool */+ if ($input != Py_None && $input != _global_py_pool) {+- SWIG_Python_TypeError(SWIG_TypePrettyName($descriptor), $input);++ SWIG_Error(SWIG_TypeError, "a '$type' is expected");+ SWIG_arg_fail($svn_argnum);+ SWIG_fail;+ }
No comments:
Post a Comment