Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:19:23 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> To: Kurt Jaeger <pi@freebsd.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r495383 - in head/java: . wildfly16 wildfly16/files Message-ID: <20190314161923.GA5046@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20190313171719.GS88817@fc.opsec.eu> References: <201903111943.x2BJhchV074502@repo.freebsd.org> <20190312021938.GA4479@FreeBSD.org> <20190313171719.GS88817@fc.opsec.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 06:17:19PM +0100, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> > > Log:
> > > New port: java/wildfly16
> [...]
> > Its name suggests it should've been repocopied from one of the earlier
> > versions but it was not, why is that?
>
> I missed it, that is common for arkane rules.
There's nothing arcane about repocopies Kurt. I'm honestly surprised
why people make this mistake again and again. When you resurrect a
port you make a repocopy. When you spin-off a new branch based on a
previous version you make a repocopy (like you've added a new wildfly
port, how could you not have noticed that there are a handful of ports
thereof already?):
$ grep wildfly /usr/ports/java/Makefile
SUBDIR += wildfly10
SUBDIR += wildfly11
SUBDIR += wildfly12
SUBDIR += wildfly13
SUBDIR += wildfly14
SUBDIR += wildfly15
SUBDIR += wildfly90
Upstream renames their software, you make a repocopy, etc. Basically,
every time there is an ancestral connection between what you've about
to add and some [pre-]existing port, you make a repocopy. It's a no
brainer. Feel free to ask me every time when you have your doubts.
./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190314161923.GA5046>