On Thu, Jan 15, 2015, at 02:32 PM, Landry Breuil wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 02:04:53PM +0100, Adam Wolk wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015, at 09:24 AM, Landry Breuil wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:39:32PM +0100, Adam Wolk wrote: > > > > Hi ports@, > > > > > > > > This is my first port so bring in your favourite flame-thrower to the > > > > party. > > > > > > > > This port has a very active upstream which is really open to taking up > > > > pull requests. > > > > In case you notice any problems with the software itself - feel free to > > > > ping me in order > > > > to propagate it up to the developers via a single channel. > > > > > > > > Testing: > > > > > > > > This port has been tested on a i386 snapshot of (Jan 10) OpenBSD 5.7 > > > > using xfce4. > > > > > > Some comments on the port itself: > > > - you should rerun make update-plist to remove share/applications and > > > share/icons/hicolor dirs that are already brought by the dependency no > > > gtk+2,guic and desktop-file-utils. > > > > Fixed. > > > - we usually put the GH_* variables near the top of the makefile. > > > > Fixed, moved it to the top after checking where other ports place it. > > Have a look at /usr/ports/infrastructure/templates/Makefile.template, > COMMENT should be near the top... but i'm really just nitpicking, other > than that it looks good portswise. zhuk@ commited the qt5 fix, so when > packages with it reaches the mirrors we'll be able to test your port. > > Landry >
Thanks, though I do have a question about the template :) The GH_* variables are really down the list in them (that's also the reason why mine were so low initially). I currently have COMMENT right after the ONLY_FOR_ARCHS variable which matches the template order. My question is where should I move COMMENT (above VERSION/GH_*) and should I also move ONLY_FOR_ARCHS with it?
