Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2026/09/10 16:42, Chris Billington wrote:
>> +EXTRACT_SUFX =		.tar.gz
> 
> not needed, this is the default
> 
>> +SHA256 (3b12bc579b99932e3fe307ea1e44b8c1c6d1d5c9.tar.gz) = 8F0xFe9bimf51zwRpZdy3EKaUdcFCZ1vuUFOq5VLb1g=
> 
> not a valid filename for distfiles
> 
> the patch to PLIST doesn't fully apply:
> 
> Hunk #22 failed at 1981.
> 1 out of 124 hunks failed--saving rejects to pkg/PLIST.rej
> 
> 
> On 2026/09/10 03:07, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
>> Chris Billington writes:
>>> - upstream uses git submodules for pugixml, SingleApplication, and the
>>> 'elements' library. I have used the same pinned revisions in
>>> SITES.xxx/DISTFILES.xxx as the upstream branch.
>>
>> DIST_TUPLE would be a better fit for this.
> 
> yes, that would fix the 3b12bc5... filename too. (btw you can use GH_*
> for the main file and DIST_TUPLE for submodules; portroach is likely to
> cope better with that)
> 
>>> - The 'elements' user-submitted library (CC-BY-SA 3.0) is pinned against
>>> a 9-month-old commit of the submodule repo.
>>> Is it permissible to use a recent commit instead, since that would still
>>> make a reproducible build but would include more recent items?
>>
>> If doing so provides value and doesn't introduce incompatibility, then
>> sure.
> 
> agreed (in many cases there is a reason why upstream pins a particular
> version, in some other cases there isn't, so do check)
> 
>>> - portcheck notes 3 Makefile lines longer than 80 chars, but it's not
>>> easy to break them without sacrificing readability. Is that acceptable?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
> 
Thanks, I'll revise using DIST_TUPLE for the submodules and re-submit. 
Plus figure out what happened in the PLIST diff.

Chris