On 07/03/11 04:59, Landry Breuil wrote:
On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 08:25:10PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
On 07/02/11 17:57, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
Index: Makefile
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/ports/misc/rpm/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.24 Makefile
--- Makefile 17 Apr 2011 18:23:19 -0000 1.24
+++ Makefile 3 Jul 2011 00:24:01 -0000
@@ -1,44 +1,78 @@
# $OpenBSD: Makefile,v 1.24 2011/04/17 18:23:19 jasper Exp $
-COMMENT = redhat package manager
+COMMENT = linux package manager
-DISTNAME = rpm-3.0.6
-REVISION = 5
-SHARED_LIBS = rpm 0.1 \
- rpmbuild 0.0
+DISTNAME = rpm-4.9.0
+EXTRACT_SUFX = .tar.bz2
CATEGORIES = misc archivers emulators
+SHARED_LIBS = rpm 0.0 # 0.0 \
Here, the version can't go backwards, and you go from 0.1 to 0.0.
Maybe you can help me understand the SHARED_LIBS variable better. When
I do 'make plist', it tells me (among other things) to place these lines
in the Makefile:
SHARED_LIBS += rpm 0.0 # 2.0
SHARED_LIBS += rpmbuild 0.0 # 2.0
SHARED_LIBS += rpmio 0.0 # 2.0
SHARED_LIBS += rpmsign 0.0 # 0.0
So if the first version field cannot go backwards, should I take it to
0.2 since the current port states 0.1? Why did make plist report 0.0 to me?
-MAINTAINER = Marc Espie<es...@openbsd.org>
+MAINTAINER = David Cantrell<david.l.cantr...@gmail.com>
Did you talk with maintainer first ? :)
Not directly, no. I mentioned in my first email that I'd offer to take
over maintenance of the port and I figured Marc would speak up while the
patches are being reviewed here (I CC'ed him directly on the initial email).
-@comment $OpenBSD: PLIST,v 1.6 2006/01/14 20:27:11 steven Exp $
-@conflict rpm2cpio-*
Why removing the @conflict ? it still installs rpm2cpio..
Whoops, that was a mistake. Adding that back to the PLIST file.
Thanks,
--
David Cantrell <david.l.cantr...@gmail.com>
WH6DSN | http://blog.burdell.org/
