| 1 |
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 10:57:24 +0200 |
| 2 |
Joonas Niilola <juippis@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Hey, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> On 3/19/21 11:53 AM, Thomas Groman wrote: |
| 7 |
> > Package-Manager: Portage-3.0.13, Repoman-3.0.2 |
| 8 |
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Groman <tgroman@××××××.net> |
| 9 |
> > --- |
| 10 |
> > app-office/plan/Manifest | 1 + |
| 11 |
> > app-office/plan/files/plan-1.10-errno.patch | 11 + |
| 12 |
> > .../plan/files/plan-1.10-fno-common.patch | 14 ++ |
| 13 |
> > app-office/plan/files/plan-1.10-gentoo.patch | 197 |
| 14 |
> > +++++++++++++++++ .../plan/files/plan-1.10-makefile.patch | |
| 15 |
> > 184 ++++++++++++++++ app-office/plan/files/plan-1.10-webplan.patch |
| 16 |
> > | 108 ++++++++++ app-office/plan/files/plan-1.12-gentoo.patch | |
| 17 |
> > 107 ++++++++++ .../plan/files/plan-1.12-makefile.patch | 199 |
| 18 |
> > ++++++++++++++++++ app-office/plan/metadata.xml | |
| 19 |
> > 9 +- app-office/plan/plan-1.12.ebuild | 70 ++++++ |
| 20 |
> > 10 files changed, 899 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) |
| 21 |
> > create mode 100644 app-office/plan/files/plan-1.10-errno.patch |
| 22 |
> > create mode 100644 app-office/plan/files/plan-1.10-fno-common.patch |
| 23 |
> > create mode 100644 app-office/plan/files/plan-1.10-gentoo.patch |
| 24 |
> > create mode 100644 app-office/plan/files/plan-1.10-makefile.patch |
| 25 |
> > create mode 100644 app-office/plan/files/plan-1.10-webplan.patch |
| 26 |
> > create mode 100644 app-office/plan/files/plan-1.12-gentoo.patch |
| 27 |
> > create mode 100644 app-office/plan/files/plan-1.12-makefile.patch |
| 28 |
> > create mode 100644 app-office/plan/plan-1.12.ebuild |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > ... |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Few things: I see you're introducing few files for 1.10 that never get |
| 33 |
> used. Did you plan to fix 1.10 too? IMHO you can just remove it and |
| 34 |
> forget about these files. You're bringing 50 kb worth of patches in |
| 35 |
> total. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Then 1.12 installs many "plan.help" / "plan.lang.*" files into |
| 38 |
> /usr/bin, but none are executable. And if I chmod then, they just |
| 39 |
> give me syntax error. And indeed upon inspection, they look like |
| 40 |
> manpages rather than executable binaries / scripts. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> -- juippis |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Yes actually, |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
I originally saw the bug report on plan 1.10, saw it was abandoned and |
| 49 |
it was pulling a tarball of patches from someone's personal site which |
| 50 |
didn't seem very stable. Especially considering that person doesn't |
| 51 |
maintain the plan ebuild anymore. I expected me to miss a few spots in |
| 52 |
the new 1.12 version as it's quite a big update. During this time 1.12 |
| 53 |
would probably remain ~amd64 experimental and I could fix 1.10 in that |
| 54 |
time if I take over maintainership then remove 1.10 ounce 1.12 is |
| 55 |
stable. |
Archives