Even though FlexSlider is GPL compatible, I don't want to package the library into the module. It would require me to update the module every time a new point release of FlexSlider is created. Instead, we ensure the tools available for downloading the library are functioning properly.
Ensure the make file and the hook_requirements are detecting the version of FlexSlider properly and downloading the proper version.
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #10 | 1736474-makefile-7.x-1.x-10.patch | 1.32 KB | achton |
| #5 | flexslider-updated_make_file_with_correct_version_flexslider_library-1736474-5.patch | 569 bytes | zorp |
| #4 | 1736474-makefile-4.patch | 872 bytes | guillaumev |
Comments
Comment #1
gmclelland commentedI would recommend not including a make file, or if you do call it something like flexslider.make.example that can be renamed to flexslider.make if the person wants to use it.
See this comment http://drupal.org/node/1701496#comment-6277830 and http://drupal.org/node/1721294
Hope that helps
Comment #2
minoroffense commentedFixed. Thanks for the info.
Comment #3
guillaumev commentedCould this makefile be removed or renamed for the 1.x branch as well ?
Thank you in advance...
Comment #4
guillaumev commentedHere is a patch that renames the file.
Comment #5
zorp commentedI think the idea of having a make file is great, it is nice not having to think about pulling down libraries and stuff when you build you site.
I have attached a patch that make sure the make file is pointed at the branch working with version 1.x of the module.
Comment #6
minoroffense commentedCommitted.
Thanks!
Comment #8
achtonminorOffense: so the make file is renamed in the 2.x version.
But for 1.x, the patch in #5 was committed, so now there is a discrepancy. I think this needs a backport to 1.x. Maybe the patch in #4 still applies, or else it just needs a reroll.
Comment #9
achtonComment #10
achtonOk, so I see that Git is reposting related commits from waaay back, even to closed issues. So that commit to 2.x above is old.
None the less, the behaviour for 1.x and 2.x still differs. So here's a patch for 1.x that does the same as that commit.
Comment #11
damienmckenna@achton: When you upload a patch you should set the status to "Needs review"; "Patch (to be ported)" is for when an existing patch has been committed to one branch (e.g. 7.x-1.x) and it then needs to be back/forwardported to another branch (e.g. 6.x-1.x).