Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

[NEW PORT] net/py-python-bitcoinrpc

Authored by loader on Aug 6 2015, 3:18 PM.

Diff Detail

rP FreeBSD ports repository
Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable.
Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.

Event Timeline

loader retitled this revision from to [NEW PORT] net/py-python-bitcoinrpc.
loader updated this object.
loader edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)
loader added a reviewer: koobs.
koobs edited edge metadata.

I am accepting this review, since all of my comments do not 'necessarily' require changes, and are feedback for you to make judgement/decisions on if you choose. They are not blockers to approval/commit.

You clearly know exactly what you're doing, great job :)

5 ↗(On Diff #7714)

Upstream needs to update their PyPi version :)

Also their



Note: This comment is not a commit blocker.

7 ↗(On Diff #7714)

Maybe finance as secondary (leaving python as tertiary virtual)?

What secondary categories are other bitcoin ports in?

13 ↗(On Diff #7714)

Upstream doesn't have a LICENSE_FILE, so ask them to add one :)

I added comment here:

Not a commit blocker.

22 ↗(On Diff #7714)


v0.3 doesnt appear to have the bitcoinrpc directory in the tarball:

I'd either:

  • Use the latest commit hash, and call it DISTVERSION=0.3.0.<hash>, in which case this wont be needed, OR
  • Remove this as it doesn't appear necessary for pure v0.3?

I know last revision I said that backporting changes is often the best thing to do. In this case its a substantial changeset, so to save you time, use the hash you want, but just be 'smart' about correctly 'naming' the version so users aren't confused :)

And ask the author for a new tag/release :)

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Aug 6 2015, 3:44 PM
loader edited edge metadata.

Thanks @koobs

poudriere log:
% portlint -AC
looks fine.

This revision now requires review to proceed.Aug 7 2015, 3:37 AM
koobs requested changes to this revision.Aug 7 2015, 3:47 AM
koobs edited edge metadata.
koobs added inline comments.
5 ↗(On Diff #7744)

I would use 0.3.0.<date> to mean, v.0.3.0 + commits up to <datestamp>

This way when the next version is released (0.3.1, 0.4.0, etc), the port wont require a PORTEPOCH bump.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Aug 7 2015, 3:47 AM
6 ↗(On Diff #7744)
8 ↗(On Diff #7744)

Thanks @koobs
added finance as secondary category

21 ↗(On Diff #7744)

please let me know if it's okay to use the last commit date from upstream as the PORTVERSION

BTW. Is there any best practices for creating a patch with an
It seems patch(1) in the base can't create an empty file if it doesn't exist before.

5 ↗(On Diff #7744)

thank you for your quick reply, I will upload another patch.

6 ↗(On Diff #7744)
21 ↗(On Diff #7744)

I can't think of a better way than touch(8) if our patch can't do it

Please also include a 'commit summary' each time you arc diff --update so change summary is visible per commit, making it easier to understand change context

loader edited edge metadata.

update the PORTVERSION to

koobs edited edge metadata.


This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Aug 7 2015, 5:10 AM

Thanks @koobs. :)

21 ↗(On Diff #7744)

okay, thank you.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.