tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: suggestions for url2pkg and pkglint (was: Re: libreswan 4.7 for wip)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 13:14, Roland Illig <> wrote:
> Am 15.06.2022 um 17:07 schrieb Andrew Cagney:
> > On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 05:09, Greg Troxel <> wrote:
> >> - There is no COMMIT_MSG (for use when committing the cvs add).
> >
> > Would it be possible for url2pkg to generate a stub for this file and
> > pkglint to, er, lint it when present?
> Sure. Since the pkgsrc guide doesn't lose a single word about
> COMMIT_MSG, I'll have to look at existing practice instead.
> What do you expect pkglint to check? What comes to mind immediately is
> that the default placeholders have been replaced. Anything else?

I see Greg Troxel sent a wish list.

From my pov, if the file is there with TODO text I'm happy.  Would
really only need to object if the file is there and still TODO.

> >> - HOMEPAGE seems wrong.
> >
> > The contents of DESCR. which url2pkg cribbed from somewhere, are also
> > wrong.  I need to find "somewhere" and get it fixed.
> When url2pkg generated DESCR, it placed the following marker in line 1
> of DESCR: f'TODO: Adjust the following lines from {filename}'; the
> candidate filenames are 'README', 'README.txt', '' from the
> extracted archive.

Thanks.  It would be (but I've found similar text scattered
across the upstream code base and website - none of it consistent :-).

> >> - patch to mandir is not really about NetBSD so much as pkgsrc.
> Instead of the 10-lines patch, you could alternatively add the following
> line to the package Makefile:

The patch is upstream so next release it can get dropped.


(filing that away)

> > Also pkglint wanted the patch broken down into individual files.  Here
> > the tweak was small so accommodating that requirement was easy but
> > that isn't true in general.  What should happen when the change-set is
> > more substantive?
> That rule has been around for more than 20 years now, I don't know
> whether it made sense at any point. For patch files that have the word
> 'CVE' in their name I already skip the rule, as I don't see a point in
> splitting these topic-based patches.

That's the scenario I had in mind.

> > Also, is there a way to package mainline (aka unstable) in parallel?
> > Or would that mean a separate libreswan-unstable package?
> That's usually done via a separate package. Especially pkgsrc-wip has
> many packages named '*-git'.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index