Hi,
Sorry for the delay. This seems to work, but I have comments:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 06:45:53AM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> +DISTNAME= graphviz
Yeah, I think that's going to cause chaos later. If the next release's
tarball has the same name we will certainly have problems.
I think we should upload the distfile under a sane name with a version
number.
> -SHARED_LIBS += gvplugin_core 1.0 # 6.0
> -SHARED_LIBS += gvplugin_gd 1.0 # 6.0
> ...
> +SHARED_LIBS += gvplugin_core 2.0 # 6.0
> +SHARED_LIBS += gvplugin_gd 2.0 # 6.0
How comes the major bump if the upstream major version is the same?
> +TEST_DEPENDS = shells/ksh93 \
> + ${FULLPKGNAME}:math/graphviz
I reckon that can be:
---8<---
TEST_DEPENDS = shells/ksh93 \
${FULLPKGNAME}:${FULLPKGPATH}
--->8---
But either way the tests are broken:
---8<---
$ make test
Invalid spec: graphviz
Invalid pkgspec: graphviz
===> graphviz-2.40.1 depends on: graphviz - not found
===> Verifying install for graphviz in math/graphviz
===> Returning to build of graphviz-2.40.1
Invalid spec: graphviz
Invalid pkgspec: graphviz
--->8---
This is because FULLPKGNAME isn't right:
---8<---
$ make show=FULLPKGNAME
graphviz
--->8---
Compare this to (e.g.) fvwm2:
---8<---
$ make show=FULLPKGNAME
fvwm-2.6.5
--->8---
Notice the version number is missing in the case of graphviz.
Cheers
--
Best Regards
Edd Barrett
http://www.theunixzoo.co.uk
