24 Jun
2004
24 Jun
'04
11:09 a.m.
Dear Younès,
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 10:59:21 +0200, ycrux@club-internet.fr wrote:
> Hi All,
> I made up new ports for Crux and I want to commit them in Crux cvs. I
> respected all parts of building a port (like described on the wiki)
> and I tested them very well before.
Basically, we try to select maintainer which have a certain experience
with CRUX and CLC. Unfortunately, I haven't talked to you on IRC, and
the posts in the CRUX mailing list make me feel that you just recently
started to use CRUX. I might be wrong though.
I'll just give you a few hints on your ports (and I'm sorry if they are
kind of hard):
> This is the list:
> 1) I repackaged the unmaintained 'wmCalClock' to take account of the
> CFLAGS parameter with the last version of wmCalClock.
mkdir -p $PKG/usr/X11R6/{bin,man}
BASE=`echo $PKG/../..`
cd $BASE
patch -p0 < wmCalClock.patch
cd $SRC/$name-$version/Src
make CFLAGS="$CFLAGS"
make DESTDIR=$PKG/usr/X11R6 install
this BASE construct looks strange (maybe it was this way in the original
port already), is it really required? I'd rather create a clean patch
(without work/src in the path).
- Port names must be all lowercase. See
http://www.fukt.bth.se/~per/crux/doc/handbook.html#Package-Guidelines-General
- The 'usr/X11R6/man/man1' entry in the .footprint looks fishy
> 2) I repackaged the unmaintained 'LIBEVENT'. It's really a mistake to
> lose this excellent library. I also used the last release.
- The depends line is wrong; there's no port called 'kernel', and no
port called '2.6.*'
See
http://crux.fh-regensburg.de/cgi-bin/cvstrac/wiki?p=PackageGuidelines
- The description is _far_ too long; it should just tell what this
package does, no details and such.
- The README should contain information about the port, not the packaged
software.
> 3) 'ERLANG' language: an open source, powerful langugae used in high
> availabilty/folt tolerant systems (+ emacs-mode)
- Again, you're using this obscure BASE variable. The Pkgfile seems very
long, but maybe that's the easiest way.
- The description spans over multiple lines and again is too verbose
- The dependency line is bad (wrong names OpenSSL, this "(optional)"
notes, versions). Again check the package guidelines from CLC.
> 4) 'REBOL' language: I packaged both 'rebol/core' and 'rebol/view'
> with their emacs-mode
- Again the BASE variable...
- README contains again irrelevant information (history of REBOL ?)
> 5) 'WMI': a new lightweight, customizable window manager for power user
- The README is far too verbose
- The description line spans over multiple lines
- The depends line is wrong (contains version numbers)
> 6) 'RE2C': an improved lexical parser generator, 2 or 3 times faster
> than lex/flex.
- The README is too verbose; things like whether you used this in one of
your projects is irrelevant to users (sorry). Same for "I very much
welcome anyone who would like to contribute to the project"...
- The description in the Pkgfile spans over multiple lines.
> For the ports 1 and 2, I want to become the new maintainer? For the
> rest, I'm your man.
By looking at your ports, it seems that you are a talented and
interested packager. I'd really suggest you put them into a private
repository and try to adjust yourself more to the guidelines and rules
we use here at CLC, and resubmit an application once you are a bit more
familiar with the general concepts of our ports.
Try looking at existing ports to see how we use dependencies,
descriptions and README's. Consistency within our ports tree is one of
main goals, which requires a certain degree of familiarity with the
ports which already exists.
Kind regards, Johannes
--
Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@tks6.net
Bern, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net