@neel_neelc.org I'd like to get this resolved. Could you reference the upstream commits/issues/merge requests this patch constitutes/ correlates with in the differential summary please, and include comments/references in the patch headers too

I was going to say that the flavors block should happen earlier, but in fact, it is all the options block that should happen later. See Chapter 15. Order of Variables in Port Makefiles. But this can wait for another time.

Fixed patch to only include related changes.

Sorry, my first try at using arcanist did not work out as expected, and unrelated changes slipped in.

Fixed the elif stanza, simple .elsse seems more correct in this case.

In D13478#281930, @madpilot wrote:

In D13478#281891, @mat wrote:

Is there any interest in having both versions ? Do they do things differently ? Wouldn't simply changing the default to use Guile 2 be simpler ?

The resulting packages are equivalent regarding functionality.

The port shortly switched to strictly using guile2 between r369578 and r370067. At the time I got many complaints about pkg forcing users to disinstall many other packages depending on guile1 to satisfy the guile2 requirement.

I thought I could take advantage of flavors to have both packages available, so users insisting on guile1 had an easy and fast solution without need for recompilation.

At the same time I see the list of ports depending on guile1 has considerably shrunk lately, so it is possible the backlash would be quite smaller now.

I'd anyway would like to have the flavor available to avoid any backlash.

In D13478#281891, @mat wrote:

Is there any interest in having both versions ? Do they do things differently ? Wouldn't simply changing the default to use Guile 2 be simpler ?

Is there any interest in having both versions ? Do they do things differently ? Wouldn't simply changing the default to use Guile 2 be simpler ?

TIL

In D6308#134002, @mat wrote:

In D6308#133954, @woodsb02 wrote:

Committed here: r414950.

Not sure why phabricator did not automatically close this review.

Because the diff revision line was not the last line of the commit message.

In D6308#133954, @woodsb02 wrote:

Committed here: r414950.

Not sure why phabricator did not automatically close this review.

Committed here: r414950.

With my gnome@ hat

If gnome@'s happy with it, then I am too.

Only add screenshot part.

Reuploadded the diff with svn diff --diff-cmd=diff -x -U9999

Could you use devel/arcanist to upload the diff, or if you have some allergies to php or something, update the diff using:

Drop KEYRING option altogether.

pam_gnome_keyring.so is installed by gnome-keyring, so it's always available, but user may not want to use it. This is why I decided to retain the option.

Thank you.

While working on a update for this, I ran into a big "Server not found" for bsdjunk.com. If the webserver is a problem, you can mail it directly to me.

You may do as you wish, as stated in msg have stopped working on this. I only updated the patch to include a screenshot in my original patch as requested.

images now uploaded.
http://bsdjunk.com/~chris/gnomess/

Add in screenshot links images are located at:
bsdjunk.com/~chris/gnomess

I'm doing that now.

Can you update the diff with your proposed screenshot and link to it in the screenshot.xml? thanks.

This adds an update to the entities file for 3.16

Fix typo: CONFIGURE_ARGS

Requesting exp-run cc portmgr

remove duplicated "by using"

add a missing "to"

no serial comma needed...

Process comments from bjk

Thank you for doing this; a few minor issues inline.

Good, looks like I did a good job at cleaning it from the Porter's Handbook 0:-)