Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

games/fretsonfire:Fixed stage-qa; Added NO_ARCH; Added LICENSE; Renamed into FretsOnFire; Added PY_FLAVOR
ClosedPublic

Authored by yuri on Jan 9 2018, 6:29 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
May 21 2024, 11:57 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 22 2023, 2:41 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 20 2023, 7:00 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 11 2023, 11:03 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Nov 29 2023, 12:35 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Nov 25 2023, 7:31 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Nov 21 2023, 12:06 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Nov 12 2023, 12:16 PM
Subscribers

Diff Detail

Repository
rP FreeBSD ports repository
Lint
No Lint Coverage
Unit
No Test Coverage
Build Status
Buildable 14210
Build 14373: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

games/fretsonfire/Makefile
5

While I agree that the port probably should have been called that when it was created, it wasn't.
with your change you'll introduce a, to me at least, annoying discrepancy between the port directory name and the pkg name.

Also you don't seem to gain much by doing it, you still need to sed the variable, just at different places.

games/fretsonfire/Makefile
5

This ${PORTNAME:S/f/F/g:S/o/O/} was repeated 5 times! And it is not a nice thing, it's hackish. It became more simple and readable, IMO.

Do you really want to keep ${PORTNAME:S/f/F/g:S/o/O/}?

games/fretsonfire/Makefile
5

Then simply set some variable to ${PORTNAME:S/f/F/g:S/o/O/} and use it. Or set a variable to FretsOnFire and be done with it.

How important is it to keep the original lowercase ​PORTNAME?
This is an obscure port, and ​PORTNAME should have obviously been mixed-case FretsOnFire.
This port is also breaking in build for a very long time.

So, why not just change it now to what it should be, especially that it simplifies things, and also get rid of that ugly hack?

In D13806#290267, @yuri wrote:

How important is it to keep the original lowercase ​PORTNAME?
This is an obscure port, and ​PORTNAME should have obviously been mixed-case FretsOnFire.
This port is also breaking in build for a very long time.

So, why not just change it now to what it should be, especially that it simplifies things, and also get rid of that ugly hack?

Well, it's not that important, to me it's just ugly to have the two changes

  • port foo/barbaz -> package BarBaz-123
  • barbaz-122 updated to BarBaz-123

so if you could fix the build without doing that, that would be great(er) ^^

yuri marked 3 inline comments as done.Jan 16 2018, 6:05 AM
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Jan 19 2018, 8:22 PM