New and update math/science ports
takeshi at mac.com
Sun Mar 11 07:03:59 PDT 2007
Hello Kevin and Dan,
Thank you for your replies.
I am glad to hear this.
> I think we all agree that the website could use some love.
I will write what I learnt from you in my blog in Japanese.
> The ones which are updates to existing ports, have you emailed the
> maintainer of said port?
I did as you suggested. What about those ports written by
nomaintainer at macports.org?
> Revisions to existing ports (revisions meaning changing the
> portfile without bumping the version, often incrementing the
> revision number if the build products will change) should be defect
> if it's fixing a bug or enhancement if it's adding something like,
> say, a variant.
Then could you change as follows?
#11519 octave-forge enhancement
#11512 odcctools enhancement
#11516 cdo-1.0.6 enhancement
Please set priorities of octave-forge and odcctools to Nice to have.
> Dependencies are unversioned.
I like this simplicity.
> You might disagree, but the port:foo version is preferred as a
> matter of policy (and because it prevents a certain class of
I prefer port:foo to what Fink does.
In Fink I had to divide one into binary, libraries and headers.
Could someone tell me how portfiles are reviewed?
Will someone commit it if it is OK?
More information about the macports-dev