On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 07:38:05PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2021/07/21 11:48, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> > Marc Espie writes:
> > > Thus, I welcome actual workflow inputs.
> >
> > This is the procedure I use:
> >
> > 1. cd /usr/ports/foo/bar
> > 2. cp
On 2021/07/21 11:48, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> Marc Espie writes:
> > Thus, I welcome actual workflow inputs.
>
> This is the procedure I use:
>
> 1. cd /usr/ports/foo/bar
> 2. cp /usr/ports/infrastructure/templates/Makefile.template Makefile
> 3. vi Makefile
[..]
FWIW my workflow for a
Marc Espie writes:
> Thus, I welcome actual workflow inputs.
This is the procedure I use:
1. cd /usr/ports/foo/bar
2. cp /usr/ports/infrastructure/templates/Makefile.template Makefile
3. vi Makefile
4. delete everything up to COMMENT and set COMMENT
5. delete everything up to DISTNAME, set
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 04:54:17PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> I've recently become MASSIVELY dissatisfied with some port rules.
>
> Specifically, the ordering of Makefile.template.
>
> I feel that, when you create a port from scratch, it doesn't match
> AT ALL the order in which you fill fields.
I've recently become MASSIVELY dissatisfied with some port rules.
Specifically, the ordering of Makefile.template.
I feel that, when you create a port from scratch, it doesn't match
AT ALL the order in which you fill fields.
I don't think it fits my workflow at all.
This isn't really
