Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

New ports required for gitlab upgrade to 10.5.x
ClosedPublic

Authored by mfechner on Mar 25 2018, 7:04 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Jul 7, 3:25 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, Jul 1, 5:27 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Jun 30, 9:11 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Jun 30, 9:06 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Jun 29, 7:32 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Jun 29, 7:22 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Jun 28, 3:15 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Jun 27, 6:14 PM
Subscribers

Details

Summary

Commit message will be:
New ports required for gitlab update to 10.5.x.

Reviewed by: tz/swills (mentor)
Approved by: tz/swills (mentor)
Differential Revision: URL to this revision

Test Plan

All patches are build, you can find all build logs:
https://pkg.fechner.net/jail.html?mastername=111amd64-gitlab

The fresh packages are tested against a new installation using:
https://gitlab.fechner.net/mfechner/Gitlab-vagrant

An old version is updated following the manual:
https://gitlab.fechner.net/mfechner/Gitlab-docu

Diff Detail

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

Event Timeline

Added new ports to Makefile(s)

tz requested changes to this revision.Mar 26 2018, 9:45 AM

Since its not possible to see it in the git diffs:
Did you create the ports with an svn repo-copy?

It looks like you didn't since security/rubygem-doorkeeper-openid_connect for example exists as 1.2.0 in the tree. You should perform:
$ cd /usr/ports
$ svn cp security/rubygem-doorkeeper-openid_connect@455061 security/rubygem-doorkeeper-openid_connect12

455061 is the revision where the port had the required version:
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=455061

The svn syntax means, that it should copy the dir security/rubygem-doorkeeper-openid_connect with the content of revision 455061 into security/rubygem-doorkeeper-openid_connect12. This way the ports share one history and its very easy to track them.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Mar 26 2018, 9:45 AM

What I did was (e.g. for port security/rubygem-doorkeeper-openid_connect12):
svn copy security/rubygem-doorkeeper-openid_connect security/rubygem-doorkeeper-openid_connect12

and then updated the files in the new directory.
Added in the ../Makefile this new port.

I also removed and changed some lines that porlint -ACN is fine.

Is this ok?

In D14840#312169, @idefix_fechner.net wrote:

What I did was (e.g. for port security/rubygem-doorkeeper-openid_connect12):
svn copy security/rubygem-doorkeeper-openid_connect security/rubygem-doorkeeper-openid_connect12

and then updated the files in the new directory.
Added in the ../Makefile this new port.

I also removed and changed some lines that porlint -ACN is fine.

Is this ok?

No, it misses the '@rev' part, which makes your life much easier. Also it makes history clear.

Executed now the following steps:
svn revert --recursive .

svn copy databases/rubygem-pg@414136 databases/rubygem-pg018
svn copy devel/rubygem-google-protobuf@458063 devel/rubygem-google-protobuf351
svn copy security/rubygem-doorkeeper-openid_connect@455061 security/rubygem-doorkeeper-openid_connect12
svn copy net/rubygem-gitaly-proto@460399 net/rubygem-gitaly-proto083
svn copy net/rubygem-gitaly-proto@460894 net/rubygem-gitaly-proto084

Added the new ports to the ../Makefile.
Fixed the Makefile (including error messages shown by "portlint -ACN"), added myself as maintainer, added PORTSCOUT line and if required a CONFLICTS_INSTALL.

Next step would be then to do a "svn commit".

Added the new ports to the ../Makefile.
Fixed the Makefile (including error messages shown by "portlint -ACN"), added myself as maintainer, added PORTSCOUT line and if required a CONFLICTS_INSTALL.

Next step would be then to do a "svn commit".

Next step is to update the review ;)

Than i can have a look and approve

net/rubygem-gitaly-proto083/Makefile
18 ↗(On Diff #40747)

If you comment it out - just remove it!

you are right ;) here a new version.

Should I undo the TIMESTAMP modification? I prepared the diffs long time ago I had access to SVN.

In D14840#312222, @idefix_fechner.net wrote:

Should I undo the TIMESTAMP modification? I prepared the diffs long time ago I had access to SVN.

Yes, that would be fine since nothing had changed.

Way to go :) Its fine for me, please commit.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Mar 26 2018, 3:08 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.