From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 16 21:34:51 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71A4C1065721 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:34:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wxs@atarininja.org) Received: from syn.atarininja.org (syn.csh.rit.edu [129.21.60.158]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88AC68FC0A for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:34:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wxs@atarininja.org) Received: by syn.atarininja.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id C52205C3D; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:36:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:36:08 -0500 From: Wesley Shields To: uzgrishin@mail.ru Message-ID: <20090116213608.GC43075@atarininja.org> References: <4970C86E.6050900@samaradom.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4970C86E.6050900@samaradom.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, miwi@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [www/sams] why did commiter bump PORTREVISION ? Now it's broken. X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:34:52 -0000 On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 09:48:30PM +0400, Yuriy Grishin wrote: > Hello > I'm the maintainer of the port www/sams. > > In early of December 2008 the developer released new version of SAMS -- > 1.0.4 > I tried to take most of users comments and sent pr > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=129816 > > Few days afterwards miwi wrote that he couldn't extract my diff (may be > because I had sent it using windows+seamonkey?) > I upload files to my homepage and submitted follow-up. > A few days later I saw that the port has been updated, BUT: > 1) http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=129816 the pr is open (is > it normal?) The PR is still open because it has not been resolved yet. Your patch is still outstanding. > 2) commiter bumped PORTREVISION and it leads to port corruption because > > -------------------Makefile------------------- > .... > DISTNAME= ${PORTNAME}-${PORTVERSION} > .... > -------------------Makefile------------------- > thus it searches sams-1.0.3 instead of sams-1.0.4 ==> hash check will fail According to the CVS logs PORTREVISION was bumped because of the OpenLDAP update. This is normal. The distfile information never changed with this commit. I was just now able to fetch and verify the checksums for the distfile so I don't see any problem. When the patch in ports/129816 is applied there won't be a problem with checksum either as the distinfo will be updated to reflect the new distfile. > Questions : > > 1.Should have I say in the pr that it was not only has been updated by > me but also by the developer? I don't understand what you're trying to say here. > 2.What should I do now? Nothing. I'm sure Martin will get to this PR when he has time and will contact you if there are any problems with the update. -- WXS