On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 09:43:35AM -0500, Alex Stangl wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:38:34AM -0800, Beech Rintoul wrote:
> > > > /usr/ports/MOVED picked up an extra blank line on the end,
> > > > apparently in v1.1647. This breaks portupdate-scan, and maybe
> > > > other things that process th
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:38:34AM -0800, Beech Rintoul wrote:
> > > /usr/ports/MOVED picked up an extra blank line on the end,
> > > apparently in v1.1647. This breaks portupdate-scan, and maybe
> > > other things that process this file.
> > >
> > > If blank lines should be treated as equivalent t
On Monday 14 July 2008, Doug Barton said:
> Alex Stangl wrote:
> > /usr/ports/MOVED picked up an extra blank line on the end,
> > apparently in v1.1647. This breaks portupdate-scan, and maybe
> > other things that process this file.
> >
> > Is there any definitive document describing this file form
Alex Stangl wrote:
/usr/ports/MOVED picked up an extra blank line on the end, apparently
in v1.1647. This breaks portupdate-scan, and maybe other things that
process this file.
Is there any definitive document describing this file format?
Not that I'm aware of.
If blank lines should be tre
/usr/ports/MOVED picked up an extra blank line on the end, apparently in
v1.1647. This breaks portupdate-scan, and maybe other things that
process this file.
Is there any definitive document describing this file format? If blank
lines should be treated as equivalent to comments, then I will issue
