On Thu, 03 Oct 2024 23:29:40 +0200,
Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org> wrote:
> 
> On 2024/10/03 20:00, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > 30.09.2024 11:26, Kirill A. Korinsky пишет:
> > > ports@
> > > 
> > > Here an update of sysutils/docker-buildx to 0.17.1 and rework of port to use
> > > modules.inc instead of huge vendored artifact.
> > 
> > Are there problems with the single tarball or do contents differ?
> > Seems simpler port-wise to deal with a single file and not have any of that
> > modules.inc churn on updates.
> 
> Also, patchable if it needs it...

Before I though that using modules.inc is more... native? because it allows
to dissmental large archive to a series of small artifacts.

But I see that keeping vendored archive make things simpler in fact, and
allows to avoid a hack with -mod=readonly

So, here a new diff which simple update docker-buildx without migrating to modules.inc.

Index: Makefile
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/ports/sysutils/docker-buildx/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -p -r1.5 Makefile
--- Makefile	2 Sep 2024 05:13:52 -0000	1.5
+++ Makefile	4 Oct 2024 00:29:26 -0000
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 COMMENT =		Docker CLI plugin for extended build capabilities
 
-V =			0.16.2
+V =			0.17.1
 GH_ACCOUNT =		docker
 GH_PROJECT =		buildx
 GH_TAGNAME =		v${V}
Index: distinfo
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/ports/sysutils/docker-buildx/distinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -p -r1.4 distinfo
--- distinfo	2 Sep 2024 05:13:52 -0000	1.4
+++ distinfo	4 Oct 2024 00:29:26 -0000
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
-SHA256 (buildx-0.16.2.tar.gz) = 8xRjV2Xz3F7+CJJEKAzSSld+g9M5/sGXD+0Wl3vyg4I=
-SIZE (buildx-0.16.2.tar.gz) = 11489714
+SHA256 (buildx-0.17.1.tar.gz) = ocgfOGFCkI1JhINvrnW1qjfhkh5xhuyKVIxUvmL+zkM=
+SIZE (buildx-0.17.1.tar.gz) = 11515121


-- 
wbr, Kirill