Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

Modernize and flavourize p5-RT extension ports
ClosedPublic

Authored by matthew on Sep 22 2018, 11:00 AM.

Details

Reviewers
None
Group Reviewers
portmgr
Commits
rP497055: Modernize and flavourize RT Extension ports
Summary

Convert the RT{40,42,44} options to new rt42 and rt44 flavours.

Drop all references to www/rt40 -- no longer in ports

Default flavour is rt44, but several of these modules only support
rt42.

Ensure @rt42 flavour conflicts with www/rt44 port and vice-versa

Review by portmgr@ due to introduction of new flavours. This adds less than 10 additional
ports to the 'to build' list.

Re-order various sections and re-roll one patch to placate portlint

Update p5-RT-Extension-MandatoryOnTransition to 0.16; all other
modules get a PORTREVISION bump.

Test Plan

poudriere test builds; 10.4, 11.1 release; i386, amd64; all flavours.

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

matthew added a reviewer: portmgr.

Is flavoring really needed? number of packages is exploding and now exp-run take several days to complete.

Is flavoring really needed? number of packages is exploding and now exp-run take several days to complete.

Flavoring here is about as necessary as it is for any other flavored packages: this is nothing special in that respect.
It's only a tiny increment in the number of packages compared to eg. adding PHP and Python flavors, and the packages
don't involve any compilation or other strenuous activity to generate.

www/p5-RT-Authen-ExternalAuth/Makefile
26 ↗(On Diff #48349)

Having one flavor makes very little sense.

www/p5-RT-Extension-CommandByMail/Makefile
21 ↗(On Diff #48349)

So, this port really conflicts with the rt44 port? Should it not be p5-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-rt44?

25 ↗(On Diff #48349)

It took me about a few minutes rereading of this line before understanding wtf it was doing.

Adding a a line with:

FLAVOR?=	${FLAVORS:[1]}

Would allow this to be a really more readable ${FLAVOR} == rt42.

www/p5-RT-Extension-Gravatar/Makefile
21 ↗(On Diff #48349)

Same here.

25 ↗(On Diff #48349)

Same here.

www/p5-RT-Extension-LDAPImport/Makefile
26 ↗(On Diff #48349)

Same.

30 ↗(On Diff #48349)

Same.

www/p5-RT-Extension-MandatoryOnTransition/Makefile
20 ↗(On Diff #48349)

Same.

24 ↗(On Diff #48349)

Same.

www/p5-RT-Extension-QuickAssign/Makefile
19 ↗(On Diff #48349)

One flavor makes no sense.

www/p5-RT-Extension-SLA/Makefile
22 ↗(On Diff #48349)

One flavor.

www/p5-RTx-Calendar/Makefile
27 ↗(On Diff #48349)

same.

31 ↗(On Diff #48349)

same.

37 ↗(On Diff #48349)

Why +=?

  • Import D17285 changes
  • Don't use flavours where there's only one choice. These modules are
  • No PORTREVISION bump if all we're doing is dropping support for the
  • Set FLAVOR so flavourization actually happens...
  • rtXX_PKGNAMEPREFIX should always end in a -
matthew marked 12 inline comments as done.
  • No need to test for undefinedness as we always set ${FLAVOR} a few
  • Fix longstanding error USES+=perl5 -> USES=perl5

Revive this review after far too long. Address all of @mat's points.

www/p5-RT-Extension-CommandByMail/Makefile
21 ↗(On Diff #48349)

The rt42 flavoured port should conflict with rt44. I reworked this to use a PKGNAMEPREFIX as that seems to be the convention for add-on modules, rather than stand-alone applications.

I had a quick look, it looks good to me.

This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state Needs Review.Mar 28 2019, 7:26 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.