Help needing adapting home-brew formula?

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Mar 26, 2016, at 19:58, Rainer Müller wrote:
> 
>> On 2016-03-27 00:36, André-John Mas wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I am trying to update the mediainfo port to 0.7.83, though there are
>> changes beyond the
>> version number that need to be made.
>> 
>> Based on suggestion of the application developer I am trying to base the
>> updated Portfile
>> on that recipe, but I am running into some issues. The homebrew file is:
> 
>> [...]
> 
> So far we are using the shell script included in the tarball for these
> steps. I am not sure we are passing all required variables there and it
> is a quite unusual approach.
> 
> I gave it a quick shot and attached an updated Portfile and patch to the
> ticket you created. The resulting binary seems to work for me.
> 
> https://trac.macports.org/ticket/50973
> 
> 
> However, libmediainfo and libzen are actually standalone libraries. When
> done properly, they should go into separate ports. That would also solve
> this problem of running multiple configure/build/destroot steps or using
> this shell script.
> 
> Look for example at the FreeBSD ports...
> 
> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/multimedia/mediainfo/Makefile?view=markup
> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/multimedia/libmediainfo/Makefile?view=markup
> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/multimedia/libzen/Makefile?view=markup
> 
> ...or the ArchLinux packaging:
> 
> https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/mediainfo
> https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/libmediainfo
> https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/libzen
> 
> 
> In my opinion, separate ports would be the better packaging for
> mediainfo, although there will probably be no other dependents for
> libmediainfo or libzen. Nevertheless, this would also remove complexity
> from the Portfiles as they would use the common configure and make targets.
> 
> By setting dist_subdir to the same value in all of these Portfiles, they
> would still share the fetched files to avoid local duplication.

Since they share the same distfile, that makes them good candidates to be subports, no?