comms/cutecom: Upgrade to 0.45.0
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by jwb on Jun 23 2018, 12:59 PM.

Details

Reviewers

jrm
wen

Summary

comms/cutecom: Upgrade to 0.45.0
Approved by jrm (mentor) or wen (mentor)
Differential to be added to commit message

Test Plan

portlint -AC: looks fine
Passed poudriere on {10.4,11.1}-{amd64,i386}

Diff Detail

Repository

rP FreeBSD ports repository

Lint

No Lint Coverage

Unit

No Test Coverage

Build Status

Buildable 17574
Build 17392: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

jwb created this revision.Jun 23 2018, 12:59 PM

Herald added a subscriber: mat. · View Herald TranscriptJun 23 2018, 12:59 PM

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B17564: Diff 44346.Jun 23 2018, 12:59 PM

jrm added inline comments.Jun 23 2018, 1:14 PM

comms/cutecom/Makefile
4–7	The `PORTNAME` should match the project name except when the port installs a single binary. In that case, `PORTNAME` should match the binary name. Am I recalling @mat's argument correctly?

I recall the conversation, but I think it ended with a lack of consensus
even among senior developers. The handbook still doesn't clarify this.
I'm agnostic...

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B17574: Diff 44358.Jun 23 2018, 8:39 PM

In D15981#338420, @jwb wrote:

I recall the conversation, but I think it ended with a lack of consensus
even among senior developers. The handbook still doesn't clarify this.
I'm agnostic...

As am I. Say the word and I'll approve. I do think @mat, who I normally find has logical and consistent arguments, was clear. See the comment in https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13400

Thanks for digging up the old link. I already did change PORTNAME back to cutecom, as @mat's comment would seem to suggest. Also I recall the conversation going to email and getting a little heated, but @mat's take seemed reasonable to me so I've been trying to follow it.

Lgtm

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Jun 24 2018, 1:23 AM

I put the wrong revision URL in the commit, so it did not close automatically.

In D15981#338420, @jwb wrote:

I recall the conversation, but I think it ended with a lack of consensus
even among senior developers. The handbook still doesn't clarify this.
I'm agnostic...

There was a conversation, feedback was taken, and there already is a rule for this, the porter's handbook is very specific on this.

The only place where it says you should downcase PORTNAME is for single binary ports.

Say sysutils/lsof, which only installs one binary lsof was in fact called LsOF. Then, in this case, and only in this case, should you name the port lsof.

In all other cases, you should respect upstream's case.

Thanks for clarifying, I've updated my checklist...