[MacPorts] #14435: ntfs-3g 1.1120 fetch fails; 1.2310 is available

[MacPorts]

#14435: ntfs-3g 1.1120 fetch fails; 1.2310 is available
--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
  Reporter:  ryandesign at macports.org  |       Owner:  eridius at macports.org
      Type:  defect                   |      Status:  new                 
  Priority:  Normal                   |   Milestone:  Port Bugs           
 Component:  ports                    |     Version:  1.6.0               
Resolution:                           |    Keywords:                      
--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by ryandesign at macports.org):

 * cc: Russell.Stringer.Bell.RIP at gmail.com (added)
  * summary:  ntfs-3g 1.1120 fetch fails; 1.2216 is available => ntfs-3g
              1.1120 fetch fails; 1.2310 is available

Comment:

 Replying to [comment:2 Russell.Stringer.Bell.RIP at gmail.com]:
 > This bug in the ntfs-3g portfile seems to be still unfixed.  According
 to ntfs-3g.org:
 > "The latest stable version is 1.2310, released on March 10, 2008."
 >
 > 1) After this "port install" fails due to fetch error, is it ok to
 proceed to "port install" another port?  Or must the error be fixed first,
 otherwise MacPorts stays in a corrupt/inconsistent state?

 Nothing is in a corrupt/inconsistent state. Feel free to install any port.
 Of course, any port that depends on ntfs-3g will not complete because of
 the unsatisfied dependency.

 > 2) Does fixing the error simply require "port edit" the ntfs-3g portfile
 to point to the latest source package, checksums, etc.?

 Yes, if the build process has not changed between 1.1120 and 1.2310. If
 the ntfs-3g build process has changed, then the portfile will have to be
 adapted to the new ntfs-3g build process.

 It seems that the software is supposed to install a symlink
 `${prefix}/sbin/mount.ntfs-3g` which points to `${prefix}/bin/ntfs-3g`,
 and also a manpage `${prefix}/share/man/man8/mount.ntfs-3g`. But with
 1.2310, none of these are being installed. That seems like a problem.

 > 3) Is the port process supposed to return exit-status 0 after an error
 like this (is that the intended/desired behavior)?

 I would expect a nonzero exit status after such an error. I see that this
 is not the case. This should be filed as a separate bug, if one is not
 already filed.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/ticket/14435#comment:3>
MacPorts </projects/macports>
Ports system for Mac OS