Landon Fuller wrote: > On Mar 26, 2008, at 12:13 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >> Patchfile naming: The old guide was contradictory, and in one place, >> recommended the naming scheme "patch-*" while in another place it >> recommended "patch-*.diff". The new guide is now consistent in >> recommending "patch-*.diff". > > The original documentation (which I wrote) was originally > consistent with the FreeBSD > patch specification: > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/ > slow-patch.html > > We then adopted the semantic of patch-foobar.diff, where 'foobar' > was a feature that > covered many files -- this was due to the headache of patch-per- > file for a sizable set > of diffs.
I agree with Landon here, the current lint warning seems misguided ? This was discussed at length before it was implemented too, with there being two different kinds of patches. But apparently "consistency" once again triumphed, and one of the types of patch naming was warned about. If anything, it should be eased up to allow anything like "patch-*"... We had "patch-foo.c" and "patch-bar.h", and also "patch-foobar.diff". i.e. either patch-FILENAME (BSD style) or patch-ISSUE.diff (multi-file) > My original newline complaint was: > Warning: Line 2 should be a newline (after RCS tag) > > # $Id: Portfile 35353 2008-03-25 18:13:44Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] $ > PortSystem 1.0 > > Why does that matter? Actually the whitespace checks were originally supposed to be optional, but I didn't know how to make "port lint" read options in Tcl... :-) The inspiration for the issued warnings was portlint(1), naturally enough. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/porting- portlint.html Stylistic newlines could be made optional, with an extra port parameter ? --anders _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
