Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
#46854 closed update (fixed)
babl 0.1.10_0: update to 0.1.12
| Reported by: | Schamschula (Marius Schamschula) | Owned by: | dbevans (David B. Evans) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | ports | Version: | |
| Keywords: | haspatch | Cc: | |
| Port: | babl |
Description
babl has been updated to version 0.1.12. clang.patch is no longer required, as the file to be patched no longer exixits.
Attachments (2)
Change History (9)
Changed 10 years ago by Schamschula (Marius Schamschula)
| Attachment: | babl-palette-values-h.patch added |
|---|
comment:1 follow-up: 3 Changed 10 years ago by larryv (Lawrence Velázquez)
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by larryv (Lawrence Velázquez)
| Cc: | devans@… removed |
|---|---|
| Owner: | changed from macports-tickets@… to devans@… |
| Summary: | Update: babl 0.1.12 → babl 0.1.10_0: update to 0.1.12 |
| Version: | 2.3.3 |
comment:3 follow-up: 5 Changed 10 years ago by Schamschula (Marius Schamschula)
Replying to larryv@…:
When submitting updates, we’d really appreciate it if you could add RMD160 and SHA256 checksums to ports that don’t have them. You can leave existing MD5 and SHA1 checksums if you want.
Larry,
I'll gladly do this. However, babl is not openmaintainer, and I've been criticized in to past for updating the hash types.
comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by larryv (Lawrence Velázquez)
Replying to mschamschula@…:
I've been criticized in to past for updating the hash types.
I think that usually happens when one removes them. Sometimes upstream publishes an MD5 or SHA1, and some maintainers like to keep those in the portfile as a sanity check.
Changed 10 years ago by Schamschula (Marius Schamschula)
| Attachment: | Portfile-babl.diff added |
|---|
comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by Schamschula (Marius Schamschula)
Oops. Had renamed patch file to match existing file, but had renamed patchfile in Portfile according to my naming convention. Fixed.
comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by dbevans (David B. Evans)
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
Updated in r132955.
When submitting updates, we’d really appreciate it if you could add RMD160 and SHA256 checksums to ports that don’t have them. You can leave existing MD5 and SHA1 checksums if you want.