failure: portupgrade -f 'autoconf*' 'automake*'

[Jan Henrik Sylvester]

Ade wrote:
 > On Jul 28, 2007, at 03:03 , Jan Henrik Sylvester wrote:
 > > I think, there should be a '-' in front of every ${BUILD_VERSION}.
 > >
 > > Additionally to the one at --program-suffix, there are three more
 > > missing.
 >
 > The appropriate fix has already been committed.  Given the very small
 > window of things being broken, I'm not planning on bumping PORTREVISION.

You only fixed the --program-suffix=-${BUILD_VERSION}.

Was I wrong that in contrast to 259, in 261 there should not be a '-' in 
front of the 3 ${BUILD_VERSION} in post-patch?

 From 259 (rev=1.65):
post-patch:
	@(cd ${WRKSRC} && ${REINPLACE_CMD} -E 
's,(PACKAGE=autoconf),\1-${BUILD_VERSION},' configure)
	@(cd ${WRKSRC}/man && \
		for file in *.[1x]; do \
			${REINPLACE_CMD} -E 
's,([^-]auto)(conf|make|reconf|update|header|scan),\1\2-${BUILD_VERSION},g 
; \
						s,(config\.guess|config\.sub|ifnames),\1-${BUILD_VERSION},g' 
$$file ; \
		done)

 From 261 (rev=1.69):
post-patch:
	@(cd ${WRKSRC} && ${REINPLACE_CMD} -E 
's,(PACKAGE=autoconf),\1${BUILD_VERSION},' configure)
	@(cd ${WRKSRC}/man && \
		for file in *.[1x]; do \
			${REINPLACE_CMD} -E 
's,([^-]auto)(conf|make|reconf|update|header|scan),\1\2${BUILD_VERSION},g 
; \
						s,(config\.guess|config\.sub|ifnames),\1${BUILD_VERSION},g' $$file ; \
		done)

Just wondering,
Jan Henrik