[NEW PORT] net/py-python-bitcoinrpc

[loader]

Summary

poudriere log: http://p.defau.lt/?bDOrY0fxKi4zCdQKF_j70A
% portlint -AC
looks fine.

[koobs]

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 :)

net/py-python-bitcoinrpc/Makefile

6

Upstream needs to update their PyPi version :)

Also their

__version__

string:

https://github.com/jgarzik/python-bitcoinrpc/blob/master/setup.py#L6

Note: This comment is not a commit blocker.

8

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

What secondary categories are other bitcoin ports in?

14

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

I added comment here: https://github.com/jgarzik/python-bitcoinrpc/issues/42#issuecomment-128411210

Not a commit blocker.

23

Rationale?

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

https://github.com/jgarzik/python-bitcoinrpc/tree/v0.3/

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 :)

[loader]

Thanks @koobs

poudriere log: http://p.defau.lt/?lBL9SeHafTM1E1dlsfatEg
% portlint -AC
looks fine.

[koobs]

net/py-python-bitcoinrpc/Makefile

6

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.

[loader]

net/py-python-bitcoinrpc/Makefile

7

Sure. submitted it to upstream. https://github.com/ubldr/python-bitcoinrpc/commit/2cf384a6782a419b903225c7390ee6d90c09c555

9

Thanks @koobs
added finance as secondary category

22

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 empty__init__.py?
It seems patch(1) in the base can't create an empty file if it doesn't exist before.

[loader]

net/py-python-bitcoinrpc/Makefile

6

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

[loader]

net/py-python-bitcoinrpc/Makefile

7

oops, the URL should be https://github.com/jgarzik/python-bitcoinrpc/pull/53

[koobs]

net/py-python-bitcoinrpc/Makefile

22

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

[koobs]

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]

update the PORTVERSION to 0.3.0.20150403

[koobs]

LGMT!

[loader]

Thanks @koobs. :)

net/py-python-bitcoinrpc/Makefile

22

okay, thank you.