Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 16:49:35 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 239887] graphics/luminance-qt5: Update to 2.6.0 Message-ID: <bug-239887-7788-24DE4ZLDE8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-239887-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-239887-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D239887 --- Comment #5 from Hannes Hauswedell <h2+fbsdports@fsfe.org> --- > - Include the patch files / directory removals in the svn / unified diff Isn't that included? I removed the directory before creating the diff and t= he diff says: Only in luminance-qt5OLD: files > - Create a separate issue for the port rename proposal (including patch) Will do so once this is through. > - Set the maintainer-approval Attachment flag to signify maintainer appro= val on patches for ports you maintain. Attachment -> Details -> maintainer-= approval [+] (or set it during initial upload/attachment) Done. > - Confirm the patch/changes here pass QA (portlint, poudriere at least) make describe passses. portlint passes. make check-plist passes. make stage-qa detected missing dependency on openmp. I have updated the pat= ch for this. Now stage-qa passes. port test gives me a lot of the following: actual-package-depends: dependency on /usr/local/lib/libboost_date_time.so = not registered (normal if it belongs to base) But the port has LIB_DEPENDS on libboost_date_time.so:devel/boost-libs (and other respective ports). I haven't worked with poudriere, yet, I thought that was for bulk building?= Is it required for all ports maintainers to install this nowadays? It looks non-trivial to set up. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-239887-7788-24DE4ZLDE8>