Re: pkg/30663

["Jon Buller" <jon%bullers.net@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/30663; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Jon Buller" <jon%bullers.net@localhost>
To: Peter Schuller <peter.schuller%infidyne.com@localhost>
Cc: jonb%netbsd.org@localhost, pkgsrc-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost, 
gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost,
        jon%bullers.net@localhost
Subject: Re: pkg/30663 
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:32:56 -0700

 Peter Schuller wrote:
 
 > First off, sorry about the delay in responding[1].
 
 At least you have the excuse that you didn't know about it.  I blew it off
 for a couple of weeks because I was busy with other stuff.
 
 > > A (slightly different, but hopefully correct) fix has been commited to the
 > > CVS repository.  Please let me know if it works for you so I can close this
 >  PR.
 > 
 > It does not work, no. The current Makefile only contains the change that adds
 > GNU tar as a dependency. The part of the patch to make asdf-install
 > actually *use* 'gtar' rather than 'tar' is also required in order for it to
 > work (the SUBST:s in previous submissions).
 
 Actually, if you look at the makefile, you will see that it tries
 to work on asdf-install, it just doesn't actually do much.  I
 somehow missed the cvs add command to add the patch to insert the
 @GTAR@ string in the target file.  The distinfo file did have the
 new patch checksum though...
 
 I did it that way because I haven't made too many packages before,
 I had 3 or 4 files that needed that kind of treatment (the others
 needing @PREFIX@) and I had examples of the way I did it that I
 knew would work.  (Well, would have worked if I had done the patch
 file right...)
 
 The only examples I saw of SUBST only patched a single file.  Does
 this scale to multiple files with multiple different substitutions?
 I assume so, but I thought it better to commit something that I
 understood, rather than something I thought might work and I got
 lucky with in a few simple tests.
 
 Please try it again...
 
 Jon