requesting update of port duply to 1.9.0

[dmankus@…]

The port duply hasn't been updated in 2 years, while the package itself has continued to be developed in this time.

If there is a guide for how to take steps to update this myself, I'd be glad to try!

[dmankus@…]

Cc Me!

[mf2k (Frank Schima)]

In the future, please fill in the Port field and Cc the port maintainers (port info --maintainers duply). As reporter, you do not need to Cc yourself. Note that a "request" ticket type is only for requesting a new port.

[dmankus@…]

Replying to mf2k@…:

In the future, please fill in the Port field and Cc the port maintainers (port info --maintainers duply). As reporter, you do not need to Cc yourself. Note that a "request" ticket type is only for requesting a new port.

Thanks for letting me know, I'll be better able to fill it out properly in the future.

[neverpanic (Clemens Lang)]

You'd start by editing the Portfile and updating the version. Then, run sudo port -v checksum in the directory where the Portfile resides. The checksum phase will fail and the verbose output will contain new checksums. If possible, verify those with upstream (or verify the integrity of the local file listed at the top of port distfiles, e.g. using a different checksum type).

Once the checksum is updated, run sudo port -vt destroot. If that finishes successfully that's probably everything that needs to be done. Generate a patch and attach it here.

[dmankus@…]

Patch of duply Portfile for 1.9.0

[dmankus@…]

I attached a diff patch file for the change to 1.9.0. All seems to have executed properly, and, after some quick testing, newly built duply 1.9.0 appears functional.

[mf2k (Frank Schima)]

Looks good. Now we wait for maintainer approval (or timeout).

[grrr@…]

The patch looks fine to me, Would you (dmankus@…) like to take over maintaining this port?

[neverpanic (Clemens Lang)]

Committed in r125250. We can still do the maintainer change, if dmankus@ agrees. Just comment here or ping me directly, in case I miss it.

[dmankus@…]

That's okay by me, I'm happy either way. So long as I get alerts and whatnot whenever something needs to be done, that's fine. Let me know if there's anything I should be reading up on or orienting myself with to be maintainer.

[neverpanic (Clemens Lang)]

I've added you as maintainer in r125253. Some documentation on maintainership is available in ​https://guide.macports.org/#project.contributing.maintaining, although you'll probably bored by the detailed step-by-step instructions. Basically, a MacPorts port maintainer is somebody who knows about the software and uses it and can (to some extent) answer questions about it. If in doubt, there's always upstream or the macports-dev list you could ask.

You'll be Cc'd on tickets, so you should get a mail when there's something to do. You might want to periodically run port [-dv] livecheck duply (which I've fixed in r125252), because that will tell you if a new version is available.

Please decide whether I should add openmaintainer as explained in ​https://guide.macports.org/#project.update-policies.nonmaintainer.

[dmankus@…]

I guess I'll take a stab at maintainership for now.

I am merely a user of duply who happened to notice that my macports version was sadly out of date and decided to see what to do about it. I hadn't even registered prior (though used macports on and off for some years).

That said, nothing seems to preclude open maintainership, if that is the standard way to handle these types of situations. I am in no way affiliated with any part of the project, just volunteering what seems like a very low time commitment, since I appear to be the only one to have complained in two years.

Should a real issue arise, I'll almost certainly need to toss it up the ladder.

[neverpanic (Clemens Lang)]

Replying to dmankus@…:

I guess I'll take a stab at maintainership for now.

Thanks. Any helping hand is very welcome :)

I am merely a user of duply who happened to notice that my macports version was sadly out of date and decided to see what to do about it. I hadn't even registered prior (though used macports on and off for some years).

And in most cases, that's actually all it takes :)

That said, nothing seems to preclude open maintainership, if that is the standard way to handle these types of situations. I am in no way affiliated with any part of the project, just volunteering what seems like a very low time commitment, since I appear to be the only one to have complained in two years.

There is a no "standard" way on whether to add openmaintainer or not. I'm just making it a habit to ask all new maintainers for a conscious decision, since having openmaintainer can speed up updates and avoid forgetting a patch on Trac. But as the maintainer, the decision is entirely up to you.

Should a real issue arise, I'll almost certainly need to toss it up the ladder.

Sure, we're here to help, and so most likely is upstream duply.

[grrr@…]

Thanks for taking over this port dmankus, and good luck!