New and update math/science ports

Takeshi Enomoto takeshi at
Sun Mar 11 07:03:59 PDT 2007

Hello Kevin and Dan,

Thank you for your replies.

> Welcome!

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

> 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  
> problems).

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 mailing list