hdf5 @1.6.9_4: retire this port

[petrrr]

I am wondering if we cannot / should not retire the hdf5 port, or updating to 1.8 and get rid of hdf5-18, directly.

HDF5 1.6 is not fully API compatible with, however 1.8 provides API compatibility as well, and most software now should be 1.8 compatible. All depending ports seem to depend on hdf5-18, so from this point of view it is not need. HDF5 1.6.9 was released in May 2009, the last 1.6.x release is 1.6.10, but the port was never updated. So the port is already quite aged and not maintained.

Maybe the port could be marked as replaced_by hdf5-18 and hdf5-18 would eventually be renamed to simply hdf5.

Or we might want to do this directly, so hdf5 would be just an update and hdf5-18 would be replaced by hdf5, plus changing all dependencies?

[mamoll (Mark Moll)]

I'd okay with the last option, esp. if there's no ports depending on hdf5 1.6.9.

[seanfarley (Sean Farley)]

Replying to mmoll@…:

I'd okay with the last option, esp. if there's no ports depending on hdf5 1.6.9.

Yeah, same here.

[petrrr]

I made a quick:

petr% port echo depends:"hdf5-18" | wc
      51      51    1683

petr% port echo depends:"hdf5" | wc
      51      51    1683

So I would assume all ports depending on hdf5 actually depend on hdf5-18. Or, am I missing something?

[mf2k (Frank Schima)]

I think that's a correct assumption. No ports currently depend on hdf5. I agree with the last option of simply updating the current hdf5 port to the 1.8 version and replacing hdf5-18 with it.

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

Replying to mf2k@…:

I think that's a correct assumption. No ports currently depend on hdf5.

Yup:

$ port echo depends:':hdf5-18($|\s)' | wc
      52      52    1716
$ port echo depends:':hdf5($|\s)' | wc
       0       0       0

I agree with the last option of simply updating the current hdf5 port to the 1.8 version and replacing hdf5-18 with it.

The deactivate hack may need to be used.

[mamoll (Mark Moll)]

I'd be happy to make the change. If I understand correctly, I'd need to make the following changes:

• "svn cp" the hdf5-18 Portfile to hdf5 and change the name to hdf5.
• Add the deactivate hack to the hdf5 port:

  pre-activate {
      if {![catch {set installed [lindex [registry_active hdf5-18] 0]}]} {
          set _version [lindex $installed 1]
          if {[vercmp $_version 1.8.14] < 0} {
              registry_deactivate_composite hdf5-18 "" [list ports_nodepcheck 1]
          }
      }
  }
  

• Replace the hdf5-18 Portfile with this:

  PortSystem          1.0
  replaced_by         hdf5
  PortGroup           obsolete 1.0
  
  name                hdf5-18
  version             1.8.13
  categories          science
  maintainers         nomaintainer
  

• Change all ports that depend on hdf5-18 to depend on hdf5 and rev bump.

Did I miss anything?

[petrrr]

I guess, more or less that's it. Not sure about the deactivate hack. I thought it was not necessary anymore, but would need to check the details. Ahhh, mf2k@ is mentioning this so probably it is ...

I guess you want to add a replaced_by hdf5 line to the hdf5-18 Portfile as well.

[mf2k (Frank Schima)]

Replying to petr@…:

I guess, more or less that's it. Not sure about the deactivate hack. I thought it was not necessary anymore, but would need to check the details. Ahhh, mf2k@ is mentioning this so probably it is ...

Actually ryandesign mentioned it and he is much more knowledgeable than I!

I guess you want to add a replaced_by hdf5 line to the hdf5-18 Portfile as well.

He did mention that in step 3.

These steps look good to me too.

[mamoll (Mark Moll)]

Committed in r123274.

[petrrr]

Thanks for taking care of this!

Just a one minor observation, in the warning texts the Portfile still refers to hdf5-18. This is not functional, but should be updated as well.

[mamoll (Mark Moll)]

Oops, you're right! Fixed in r123280.