Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

New ports required for gitlab upgrade to 10.5.x
ClosedPublic

Authored by mfechner on Mar 25 2018, 7:04 AM.

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
Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable.
Unit
Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.

Event Timeline

mfechner created this revision.Mar 25 2018, 7:04 AM
mfechner updated this revision to Diff 40739.Mar 26 2018, 9:27 AM

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
mfechner added a comment.EditedMar 26 2018, 10:30 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?

tz added a comment.Mar 26 2018, 10:33 AM
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".

tz added a comment.Mar 26 2018, 2:46 PM

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

mfechner updated this revision to Diff 40747.Mar 26 2018, 2:47 PM
tz added inline comments.Mar 26 2018, 2:50 PM
net/rubygem-gitaly-proto083/Makefile
18 ↗(On Diff #40747)

If you comment it out - just remove it!

mfechner updated this revision to Diff 40748.Mar 26 2018, 2:52 PM

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.

tz added a comment.Mar 26 2018, 2:59 PM
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.

mfechner updated this revision to Diff 40749.Mar 26 2018, 3:07 PM

Removed TIMESTAMP change.

tz accepted this revision.Mar 26 2018, 3:08 PM

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.