www/tdiary: update to 5.0.5

[ultima]

Summary

• Updated to 5.0.5
• Maintainer change tota --> Yasuhiro KIMURA <[e-mail]> (maintainer timout 10 months)
• Moved Uses and USE_*(13.1.7) to start the section [1]

The port is not using USE_GITHUB due to not being able to change the MASTER_SITE_SUBDIR for the github pool.

Changelog: https://github.com/tdiary/tdiary-core/releases/tag/v5.0.5

[1] https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/porting-samplem.html#porting-samplem-order

PR\: 212792
Sumitted by\: Yasuhiro KIMURA <[e-mail]>
Reviewed by\: lifanov (mentor), matthew (mentor)
Approved by\: lifanov (mentor), matthew (mentor), maintainer timeout
Differential Revision\: https://reviews.freebsd.org/DXXXXX

Also sent an email to tota@ alerting him about the maintainer timeout and to reply to the PR if he wishes to keep the port. I notice he is making commits and has some recent, but no response as of yet.

Test Plan

portlint:
WARN: Makefile: for new port, make $FreeBSD$ tag in comment section empty, to make SVN happy.
0 fatal errors and 1 warning found.

poudriere:
103i386
103amd64
110i386
110amd64
12i386
12amd64

[ultima]

oh, and www/tdiary/files/patch-lib_tdiary_request.rbwww/tdiary/files/patch-lib_tdiary_request.rb file is necessary because it solves patching failure according to the submitter.

[matthew]

Apart from the Github thing, everything else looks fine to me.

www/tdiary/Makefile

7 ↗

(On Diff #30594)

I don't get the explanation for not using USE_GITHUB here? MASTER_SITE_SUBDIR doesn't make any sense for downloads from Github, and it didn't apply to the older version of the port either.

OK -- you won't get _exactly_ the same tarball from USE_GITHUB, but there shouldn't be any significant differences, and it would avoid this port being a special snowflake.

[ultima]

www/tdiary/Makefile

7 ↗

(On Diff #30594)

Yeah, I tried this first, but it will only download the source. This is the explanation the submitter gave.

USE_GITHUB is convinient but it is not good idea to use it with this port.
Because content of source archive (tdiary-full-v5.0.5.tar.gz) is not simple checkout of one GitHub repository, but the result of following 3 steps:

1. Checkout https://github.com/tdiary/tdiary-core.git
2. Checkout https://github.com/tdiary/tdiary-theme.git and put everything into 'theme' sub-directory of step 1.
3. Genarate doc/*.html from doc/*.md by using Markdown-to-HTML converter.

So if I use USE_GITHUB in this port,

• I need to use complex way described in "5.4.3.1. Fetching Multiple Files from GitHub" of Porter's Handbook.
• Markdown-to-HTML converter have to be added to BUILD_DEPEND.

I prefer simple way so adopt downloading one ready-made archive and extracting it. - Yasuhiro KIMURA

Should this be fixed to the more complicated way so the github pool can be used? I was also considering implement a way to modify the sub directory url when using USE_GITHUB, adding GH_SUBDIR and this variable would have to trump over most the other GH_* when used. This would probably take longer to implement test and have all the right devs review/approve so this option is probably not ideal for a port waiting on it.

[lifanov]

I think I'm OK with this. The upstream chooses to host release tarballs on GitHub and if the maintainer doesn't like the added complexity of fetching multiple things and converting markdown files. This is not a commit approval until matthew chimes in.

[matthew]

www/tdiary/Makefile

7 ↗

(On Diff #30594)

You have convinced me that downloading the release from Github is the most elegant solution.

[matthew]

although please make sure you use your convincing explanation (or a precis of it) in the commit message.