[118334] trunk/dports

[Ryan Schmidt]

Too late to decrease the revision for the subports. I would remove the “revision 1” line at the top that you added, increase the revision from 1 to 2 in the “if {${name} eq ${subport}} { … }” section, and add a “revision 1” line in the “else” portion of that conditional. This way, any future attempts to set the revision at the top of the portfile will have no effect. I try to use this strategy now in portfiles with subports. In one-port portfiles, having a “revision 0” line is superfluous, but in portfiles with subports, I keep a revision line in each subport, even if it’s 0, to guard against top-level revisions being added later.

On Mar 31, 2014, at 04:42, Andrew Stromnov <stromnov at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>    Sorry. Should I revert revision back to 0 and increase revision in if {${name} eq ${subport}} { … } section instead?
>    Or just increase revision?
> 
> — 
> Andrew Stromnov
> 
> 
> On 31 Mar 2014, at 13:32 , Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Mar 31, 2014, at 03:54, stromnov at macports.org wrote:
>> 
>>> Revision
>>> 118334
>>> Author
>>> stromnov at macports.org
>>> Date
>>> 2014-03-31 01:54:36 -0700 (Mon, 31 Mar 2014)
>>> Log Message
>>> 
>>> bump revision for dependants of leptonica (was updated to 1.70)
>> 
>> 
>>> --- trunk/dports/textproc/tesseract/Portfile	2014-03-31 00:19:21 UTC (rev 118333)
>>> +++ trunk/dports/textproc/tesseract/Portfile	2014-03-31 08:54:36 UTC (rev 118334)
>>> 
>>> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> name                tesseract
>>> 
>>> version             3.02.02
>>> 
>>> +revision            1
>>> 
>>> categories          textproc graphics pdf
>>> 
>>> platforms           darwin
>> 
>> tesseract is a port with many subports. Only the main port links with leptonica. Its revision was already one (see further down in the portfile) so you haven’t increased it yet; you’ve only increased the revision of the language subports, which didn’t need it.
>> 
>> 
>