lttoolbox: upgrade to 3.7.6, apertium: upgrade to 3.9.4

[erikbs]

Description

These ports have not been updated in several years. I am not sure if old and new versions work well together, so I thought it would be best to update them both in the same PR. They are separate ports even though both are part of the Apertium project, so there are two commits. Please let me know if I should squash them.

Both have migrated from SourceForge to GitHub. They now require C++17 (apertium needs LegacySupport for std::filesystem on Darwin < 19) and build with autoreconf. I have also updated the dependencies.

For lttoolbox I had to add dependencies autoconf, automake and libtool even though I put use_autoreconf in the Portfile. That was not necessary for apertium, and doing it would even have port lint complain about duplicate dependencies. I have no idea why.

Type(s)

• bugfix
• enhancement
• security fix

Tested on

macOS 10.9.5 13F1911 x86_64
Xcode 6.2 6C131e

Verification

Have you

• followed our Commit Message Guidelines?
• squashed and minimized your commits?
• checked that there aren't other open pull requests for the same change?
• referenced existing tickets on Trac with full URL in commit message?
• checked your Portfile with port lint?
• tried existing tests with sudo port test?
• tried a full install with sudo port -vst install?
• tested basic functionality of all binary files?

Tested some binaries, to check for linker errors. Both ports install quite a few binaries and I do not know how to use all of them.

[ryandesign]

Between the time that this PR was created and the time that it was merged, the github PortGroup was changed in a way that causes this port to fail to fetch. github.tarball_from needs to be set to whatever the right value is for this port, plus possibly other changes.

[ryandesign]

Both of these projects offer release downloads. Therefore the portgroup's new default download method of "releases" is correct but the port file needs to use use_bzip2 yes since the release download is a bz2 file. And using a release download would normally eliminate the need to autoreconf so those parts of the portfiles need review as well.

[erikbs]

@ryandesign The versions provided for these ports before my changes were ancient, so I highly doubt that there are many people using them – fortunately. However, I probably do not have the time to fix them until the weekend, so I do not mind if my changes are reverted until I submit a new PR.

Regarding use_autoreconf: I plan to add language data for Apertium as subports (all autotools), similar to the solution for Tesseract, and many of those repos do not have any releases (or very old releases). Apparently it is common for Apertium users to use nightly builds instead, so I consider using commit hashes instead of release tags for the language data subports. Will I need autoreconf then?

One final question: would it make sense to make lttoolbox a subport of apertium too? They are both repos under the same GitHub project, are closely related, and there is another apertium-something repo that is needed for some language data that I plan to add as a subport of apertium.