Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

net/gopher: Update to 3.0.6, Take MAINTAINER'ship, portlint cleanup
ClosedPublic

Authored by ultima on Aug 6 2017, 7:02 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Jan 17 2024, 3:11 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Jan 15 2024, 4:33 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Jan 2 2024, 9:07 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 31 2023, 5:43 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 31 2023, 5:43 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 31 2023, 5:43 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 28 2023, 10:12 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 22 2023, 10:36 PM
Subscribers

Details

Summary
  • Bump PORTREVISION
  • Added license information
  • Give maintainer to submitter, Aaron Baugher
  • Cleaned up Makefile

PR\: 220973
Submitted by\: Aaron Baugher (maintainer)
Reviewed by\: lifanov (mentor), matthew (mentor)
Approved by\: lifanov (mentor), matthew (mentor)
Differential Revision\: https://reviews.freebsd.org/DXXXXX

Test Plan

portlint:
WARN: Makefile: for new port, make $FreeBSD$ tag in comment section empty, to make SVN happy.
WARN: Makefile: new ports should not set PORTREVISION.
0 fatal errors and 2 warnings found.

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

Diff Detail

Repository
rP FreeBSD ports repository
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

From the summary:

  • Revision bump

This is why, if you really want to say that you bumped PORTREVISION, you need to say why. I would rather skip that and make it obvious by the remainder of the commit message why this was needed. As only metadata changed, I do not really see the point of bumping it.

  • Added LICENSE / LICENSE_FILE, GPLv2
  • Add license information
  • New maintainer, Aaron Baugher <aaron@baugher.biz>

This one could be ok, though "new maintainer" somewhat implies that there was an old maintainer. Something like this would probably be better:

  • Give maintainer ship to submitter

(Also try to avoid putting email addresses in commit messages.)

  • Sorted Uses section
  • Cleanup Makefile
  • Regenerated patches for portlint

Only comments change for that, I would really skip that step.

In D11897#246942, @mat wrote:

From the summary:

  • Revision bump

This is why, if you really want to say that you bumped PORTREVISION, you need to say why. I would rather skip that and make it obvious by the remainder of the commit message why this was needed. As only metadata changed, I do not really see the point of bumping it.

  • Added LICENSE / LICENSE_FILE, GPLv2
  • Add license information

I thought adding license would require a PORTREVISION bump, because the package needs to be regenerated due to the added metadata from adding license information.

  • New maintainer, Aaron Baugher <aaron@baugher.biz>

This one could be ok, though "new maintainer" somewhat implies that there was an old maintainer. Something like this would probably be better:

  • Give maintainer ship to submitter

(Also try to avoid putting email addresses in commit messages.)

Ok, I thought that message was clear. To be clear, this doesn't apply to the key phrases at the end correct?

In D11897#246942, @mat wrote:
  • Added LICENSE / LICENSE_FILE, GPLv2
  • Add license information

I thought adding license would require a PORTREVISION bump, because the package needs to be regenerated due to the added metadata from adding license information.

Mmmm, while it is true that it will add the license file to the package, it kinda still is considered metadata, and we try to not bump PORTREVISION for metadata.
Also, the license information is only mostly useful during build when you can say "I don't want this license". Once the packages are packaged, you cannot really say "I don't want to install packages with this license".

  • New maintainer, Aaron Baugher <aaron@baugher.biz>

This one could be ok, though "new maintainer" somewhat implies that there was an old maintainer. Something like this would probably be better:

  • Give maintainer ship to submitter

(Also try to avoid putting email addresses in commit messages.)

Ok, I thought that message was clear. To be clear, this doesn't apply to the key phrases at the end correct?

If you mean the * by: lines, well, sure they apply. When the bugzilla account only has an email address, I obscure it by replacing [^a-z] with spaces, and if it has a name, I only put the name.

In D11897#247110, @mat wrote:
In D11897#246942, @mat wrote:
  • Added LICENSE / LICENSE_FILE, GPLv2
  • Add license information

I thought adding license would require a PORTREVISION bump, because the package needs to be regenerated due to the added metadata from adding license information.

Mmmm, while it is true that it will add the license file to the package, it kinda still is considered metadata, and we try to not bump PORTREVISION for metadata.
Also, the license information is only mostly useful during build when you can say "I don't want this license". Once the packages are packaged, you cannot really say "I don't want to install packages with this license".

  • New maintainer, Aaron Baugher <aaron@baugher.biz>

This one could be ok, though "new maintainer" somewhat implies that there was an old maintainer. Something like this would probably be better:

  • Give maintainer ship to submitter

(Also try to avoid putting email addresses in commit messages.)

Ok, I thought that message was clear. To be clear, this doesn't apply to the key phrases at the end correct?

If you mean the * by: lines, well, sure they apply. When the bugzilla account only has an email address, I obscure it by replacing [^a-z] with spaces, and if it has a name, I only put the name.

The committers guide suggests to add the username and email address for these fields except for developers which only username is necessary. It also mentions to avoid obfuscating of the email address of the submitter so I thought the entire message would be best to follow this format which is why I always mentioned users like this. This should probably be revised, I still check many of the handbooks often when I'm not positive on an area.

Also, I had to put some fires out and couldn't fix the diffs, about to start working on those now.

The committers guide suggests to add the username and email address for these fields except for developers which only username is necessary. It also mentions to avoid obfuscating of the email address of the submitter so I thought the entire message would be best to follow this format which is why I always mentioned users like this. This should probably be revised, I still check many of the handbooks often when I'm not positive on an area.

Damn, there are so many places that are need to be reviewed 🤔

Good grief. Why does anyone still use this?

Anyhow,

lgtm

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Aug 8 2017, 9:57 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.

I forgot to remove the Revision bump from this diff, I removed it in commit.