Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 23:10:40 GMT From: NAKATA@FreeBSD.org, Maho <maho@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: docs/102925: Porters hand book: description for repocopy is bit odd Message-ID: <200609052310.k85NAevs096580@www.freebsd.org> Resent-Message-ID: <200609052320.k85NKHSP011750@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Number: 102925 >Category: docs >Synopsis: Porters hand book: description for repocopy is bit odd >Confidential: no >Severity: serious >Priority: low >Responsible: freebsd-doc >State: open >Quarter: >Keywords: >Date-Required: >Class: doc-bug >Submitter-Id: current-users >Arrival-Date: Tue Sep 05 23:20:17 GMT 2006 >Closed-Date: >Last-Modified: >Originator: NAKATA, Maho >Release: 6.1-RELEASE >Organization: FreeBSD.org >Environment: >Description: In http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/ports.html#AEN1365 > When a port has been repo copied: > > 1. Upgrade the copied port to the new version (remember to change the PORTNAME so there are not duplicate ports with the same name). > 2. Add the new subdirectory to the SUBDIR listing in the parent directory Makefile. You can run make checksubdirs in the parent directory to check this. > 3. If the port changed categories, modify the CATEGORIES line of the port's Makefile accordingly > 4. Add the new module entry to CVSROOT/modules. > 5. Add an entry to ports/MOVED. However, 5. is problematic, since in this case we don't need it. At least we need some explanation. I propose to swich this to: 5. Add an entry to ports/MOVED, if you remove the original port. Per Kris, 5 is okay for repo move, though. >How-To-Repeat: >Fix: >Release-Note: >Audit-Trail: >Unformatted:
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200609052310.k85NAevs096580>