On Mon, Jun 18 2018, Klemens Nanni <k...@openbsd.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 01:40:38PM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>> > +EDIT_PATCHES ?=
>>
>> Should be
>>
>> EDIT_PATCHES ?= Yes
> Agreed, thanks.
>
>> > + if [ -n "$$toedit" -a "${EDIT_PATCHES:L}" != no ]; then \
>>
>> I dislike using -a and -o in classic test/[ commands. Even if we don't
>> care in bsd.port.mk -a/-o are not standard; also test -a is used in
>> a single other place. Could you please amend the check like shown below?
>>
>> if [ -n "$$toedit" ] && [ "${EDIT_PATCHES:L}" != no ]; then
> Sure.
>
>> > +.It Ev EDIT_PATCHES
>> > +User settings.
>> > +If set to
>> > +.Sq \&No ,
>> > +.Cm update-patches
>> > +will not open changed files in an editor.
>>
>> Nitpicking, what about adding "Defaults to 'Yes'"?
> Since the current behaviour is to always open files, other documented
> Yes/No switches already omit that clause and it doesn't add much value
> here as the only alternative is to open files, I left it out.
>
> OK?
ok jca@
--
jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
