science/massxpert: Improve port

[salvadore]

Summary

science/massxpert: Improve port

- Remove unneeded dependency on libpcre.
- Add USES= compiler:c++17-lang, consistently with
  set(CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD 17) (line 65 of CMakeLists.txt).
- Remove USES= tar:bzip2.
- Set WWW in pkg-descr to the site reported by README.md.

Reported by: diizzy

[diizzy]

science/massxpert/Makefile

19

tar:bzip2 should go if you're using USE_GITLAB

You could check if http://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/m/massxpert/massxpert_6.0.3.orig.tar.gz works and contains the same sources to avoid GitLab. If you want to pursue that solution you might also want to look into using https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/tree/Mk/bsd.sites.mk#n170

[salvadore]

Thanks diizzy.

I removed tar:bzip2. I prefer keeping GitLab: I don't see any advantage in switching to the debian site. It is not a big deal to maitain a few lines t
o use GitLab and, on the contrary, I find the GitLab site more practical as it shows the source online and I can submit merge requests if I need it. For the same reason, it is also the site in pkg-descr.

[gerald]

In the commit message you probably want to mention the LICENSE_FILE change, and adding some Why? for the compiler:c++17-lang addition probably would be useful.

Approved if you consider these two (just not marking as approved her in the tool yet to make sure you see my comments - you can then consider it approved, though).

[salvadore]

In D35138#796729, @gerald wrote:

In the commit message you probably want to mention the LICENSE_FILE change, and adding some Why? for the compiler:c++17-lang addition probably would be useful.

Approved if you consider these two (just not marking as approved her in the tool yet to make sure you see my comments - you can then consider it approved, though).

Thanks Gerald, I will add what is missing. However, I am still waiting to commit this: I am doing some research and I think I might probably need to change the site in pkg-descr. Morevover two different repositories exist for the same software: I think I have taken the right one, but I need to confirm it.

[salvadore]

I added back the LICENSE_FILE, since it has now been clarified that GPL licenses are not an exception, and changed the WWW link to the link that is reported in the README.md file.

I am still a bit confused about what is the real upstream of this software: according to the site which is now in WWW it should be https://gitlab.com/msxpertsuite/massxpert , but the https://salsa.debian.org/debichem-team/massxpert repository seems to be more up to date and developed by the same author.
I tried sending a mail to ask for clarifications, but I have not received a reply after a week. Unless someone has a better strategy to suggest, I am going to leave the actual source, which is the one that looks more up to date.

[gerald]

"consistently" -> "consistent" in the commit message.

[salvadore]

On May 16th I received a reply to my mail: I have been confirmed that I did the right thing about upstream and WWW.