Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

New port textproc/rubygem-html-pipeline required for gitlab 10.8.5
ClosedPublic

Authored by mfechner on Jun 27 2018, 5:56 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Dec 4, 6:40 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, Nov 25, 12:16 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Nov 21, 3:35 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Nov 21, 12:58 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Nov 17, 1:18 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Nov 16, 11:52 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Nov 16, 9:37 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Nov 11 2024, 2:09 PM
Subscribers

Details

Summary

Port was copied with svn copy and modified to fix some problems.

Commit message:
Added port textproc/rubygem-html-pipeline required for gitlab 10.8.5.

Test Plan

All is build using poudriere and tested.

Diff Detail

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

Event Timeline

Why not downgrading rubygem-html-pipeline27 to 2.7.1 since it is exactly only for GitLab to run?

I'd say it is a sunpoet always upgrading everything problem.

Maybe the dependencies added specifically for gitlab should be marked as special, say, with a specific PKGNAMEPREFIX. And always have a PORTSCOUT=ignore or with so that they do not show up in any report as being outdated.

What if they all had PKGNAMEPREFIX=rubygem-gitlab-? or a PKGNAMESUFFIX=-gitlab?

Sunpoet is doint a really good job it he saves me a lot of work.
The port was not broken by sunpoet but is wrongly defined by the gitlab team.

I prefer more to have a specific port for version 2.7.1 as this will maybe be fixed in gitlab already with the next version.

But I found another port called textproc/rubygem-html-pipeline-gitlab so I updated it to version 2.7.1 and will use this.

Can you please have a look to the new diff?

In D16032#339903, @tz wrote:

Why not downgrading rubygem-html-pipeline27 to 2.7.1 since it is exactly only for GitLab to run?

I do not like this. A 27 suffix tells every port maintainer to have 2.7.x where x is the highest number.
The risk is very high it even myself will update this port in my next update cycle to the highest x.

That is the reason why I personally prefer 271 as suffix to make absolutely clear that this port is fixed to 2.7.1 and no update it allowed.

Okay, i'm fine with this :)

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Jun 29 2018, 2:12 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.