Opened 13 years ago

Closed 13 years ago

#30206 closed enhancement (fixed)

mass change depends port:dbus to path:bin/dbus-daemon:dbus

Reported by: pixilla (Bradley Giesbrecht) Owned by: pixilla (Bradley Giesbrecht)
Priority: Normal Milestone:
Component: ports Version: 1.9.2
Keywords: haspatch Cc: afb@…, clubjuggler@…, drkp (Dan Ports), jyrkiwahlstedt, MarcusCalhoun-Lopez (Marcus Calhoun-Lopez), michaelld (Michael Dickens), milosh@…, saispo@…, mkae (Marko Käning)
Port:

Description

I would like the dbus-devel port to be able to satisfy dbus dependencies in other ports.

The attached patch file mass-patch-depends-dbus.diff changes all dbus dependent ports from port: style depends to path: style.

Does this seem reasonable?

Attachments (1)

mass-patch-depends-dbus.diff (9.0 KB) - added by pixilla (Bradley Giesbrecht) 13 years ago.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (14)

Changed 13 years ago by pixilla (Bradley Giesbrecht)

comment:1 Changed 13 years ago by pixilla (Bradley Giesbrecht)

mass-patch-depends-dbus.diff is against r80648.

comment:2 Changed 13 years ago by mkae (Marko Käning)

Cc: mk@… added

Cc Me!

comment:3 Changed 13 years ago by pixilla (Bradley Giesbrecht)

Cc: afb@… clubjuggler@… dports@… jwa@… mcalhoun@… michaelld@… milosh@… saispo@… added
Owner: changed from afb@… to pixilla@…

comment:4 Changed 13 years ago by mkae (Marko Käning)

Replying to pixilla@…:

mass-patch-depends-dbus.diff is against r80648.

What do you mean here? I don't see a relation of python/py25-pgsql/Portfile's r80648 to dbus.

comment:5 in reply to:  4 ; Changed 13 years ago by pixilla (Bradley Giesbrecht)

Replying to mk@…:

Replying to pixilla@…:

mass-patch-depends-dbus.diff is against r80648.

What do you mean here? I don't see a relation of python/py25-pgsql/Portfile's r80648 to dbus.

r80648 is the svn revision I patched.

comment:6 Changed 13 years ago by drkp (Dan Ports)

Sounds fine to me, though note the following nitpicking:

path:bin/dbus-daemon:dbus should be written as bin:dbus-daemon:dbus (unless there's a reason not to). But I'd actually be inclined to write the dependency as lib:dbus:dbus since it's presumably the library that these ports are depending on.

comment:7 in reply to:  6 ; Changed 13 years ago by mkae (Marko Käning)

Replying to dports@…:

Sounds fine to me, though note the following nitpicking:

path:bin/dbus-daemon:dbus should be written as bin:dbus-daemon:dbus (unless there's a reason not to). But I'd actually be inclined to write the dependency as lib:dbus:dbus since it's presumably the library that these ports are depending on.

bin: and lib: are dangerous, since they satisfy any executable or library found in the path. If you have multiple MacPorts setups on a system it is essential that the correct prefix is being used. So, the only workable way is to use path here! I am inclined to update the Guide accordingly. (This was the outcome of a thread on the dev mailing list a while ago.)

comment:8 in reply to:  5 Changed 13 years ago by mkae (Marko Käning)

Replying to pixilla@…:

Replying to mk@…:

Replying to pixilla@…:

mass-patch-depends-dbus.diff is against r80648.

What do you mean here? I don't see a relation of python/py25-pgsql/Portfile's r80648 to dbus.

r80648 is the svn revision I patched.

Ah, ok, I guess I now understand that you actually meant that you diffed your local tree against that revision. Me being stupid. Sorry! :-)

comment:9 in reply to:  7 Changed 13 years ago by mkae (Marko Käning)

Replying to mk@…:

I am inclined to update the Guide accordingly. (This was the outcome of a thread on the dev mailing list a while ago.)

I updated chapter 5.4.1: http://guide.macports.org/#reference.dependencies.types

comment:10 Changed 13 years ago by mkae (Marko Käning)

So, since dports thinks it looks fine, I guess you could proceed, pixilla, and move ahead with committing this mass patch.

I just wonder whether it would be advisable to also revbump every single patched port...

comment:11 in reply to:  10 ; Changed 13 years ago by pixilla (Bradley Giesbrecht)

Replying to mk@…:

So, since dports thinks it looks fine, I guess you could proceed, pixilla, and move ahead with committing this mass patch.

I just wonder whether it would be advisable to also revbump every single patched port...

This patch does not change any port installed files so a rev-bump would provide no advantage.

comment:12 in reply to:  11 Changed 13 years ago by pixilla (Bradley Giesbrecht)

Replying to pixilla@…:

Replying to mk@…:

So, since dports thinks it looks fine, I guess you could proceed, pixilla, and move ahead with committing this mass patch.

I am awaiting permission from michaelld (qt4-mac and qt4-mac-devel) and afb (Terminal and xfconf) as these ports are not openmaintainer.

comment:13 Changed 13 years ago by pixilla (Bradley Giesbrecht)

Resolution: fixed
Status: newclosed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.