Changeset View
Changeset View
Standalone View
Standalone View
net/rubygem-gitaly-proto/Makefile
| # Created by: Po-Chuan Hsieh <sunpoet@FreeBSD.org> | # Created by: Po-Chuan Hsieh <sunpoet@FreeBSD.org> | ||||
| # $FreeBSD: head/net/rubygem-gitaly-proto/Makefile 470735 2018-05-23 23:24:22Z sunpoet $ | # $FreeBSD: head/net/rubygem-gitaly-proto/Makefile 470735 2018-05-23 23:24:22Z sunpoet $ | ||||
| PORTNAME= gitaly-proto | PORTNAME= gitaly-proto | ||||
| PORTVERSION= 0.100.0 | PORTVERSION= 0.101.0 | ||||
| CATEGORIES= net rubygems | CATEGORIES= net rubygems | ||||
| MASTER_SITES= RG | MASTER_SITES= RG | ||||
| MAINTAINER= sunpoet@FreeBSD.org | MAINTAINER= mfechner@FreeBSD.org | ||||
swills: I assume this was OK'd with the maintainer? | |||||
Not Done Inline ActionsI asked this by email 24.5.2018 07:53 on the commit mailing list (subject: Re: svn commit: r470735 - head/net/rubygem-gitaly-proto) and 30.6. by private email, but got no feedback yet. Should I add @sunpoet to reviewer list to ask him that it is ok that I take maintainer of this port? mfechner: I asked this by email 24.5.2018 07:53 on the commit mailing list (subject: Re: svn commit… | |||||
Not Done Inline ActionsWell, that's only a week, and usually we have 2 weeks for timeout. Let's go ahead with the update only for now since this is a security update and when the timeout is reached then change the maintainer. swills: Well, that's only a week, and usually we have 2 weeks for timeout. Let's go ahead with the… | |||||
| COMMENT= Protobuf specifications and client libraries for Gitaly | COMMENT= Protobuf specifications and client libraries for Gitaly | ||||
| LICENSE= MIT | LICENSE= MIT | ||||
| RUN_DEPENDS= rubygem-google-protobuf>=3.1:devel/rubygem-google-protobuf \ | RUN_DEPENDS= rubygem-google-protobuf>=3.1:devel/rubygem-google-protobuf \ | ||||
| rubygem-grpc>=1.10:net/rubygem-grpc | rubygem-grpc>=1.10:net/rubygem-grpc | ||||
| NO_ARCH= yes | NO_ARCH= yes | ||||
| USE_RUBY= yes | USE_RUBY= yes | ||||
| USES= gem | USES= gem | ||||
| .include <bsd.port.mk> | .include <bsd.port.mk> | ||||
I assume this was OK'd with the maintainer?