Re: [30677] trunk/dports/security/authforce
On Nov 3, 2007, at 15:38, source_changes@macosforge.org wrote:
--- trunk/dports/security/authforce/Portfile 2007-11-03 20:15:07 UTC (rev 30676) +++ trunk/dports/security/authforce/Portfile 2007-11-03 20:38:14 UTC (rev 30677) @@ -22,6 +22,9 @@ configure.args --mandir=${prefix}/share/man --infodir=${prefix}/ share/info configure.cppflags-append "-L${prefix}/lib" configure.cflags-append "-no-cpp-precomp -flat_namespace - undefined suppress -lintl -L${prefix}/lib" + +patchfiles patch-http.c +
FYI: The patchfile should be named "patch-http.c.diff". "port lint" has some other recommendations for this portfile as well: $ sudo port lint Password: ---> Verifying Portfile for authforce Warning: Line 2 should be a newline (after RCS tag) Warning: Line 3 should be a newline (after PortSystem) Warning: Line 16 has trailing whitespace before newline Warning: Line 24 has trailing whitespace before newline Warning: Line 32 has trailing whitespace before newline Warning: Patchfile patch-http.c does not follow the source patch naming policy "patch-*.diff" ---> 0 errors and 6 warnings found. $
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
+ +patchfiles patch-http.c +
FYI: The patchfile should be named "patch-http.c.diff". "port lint" has some other recommendations for this portfile as well:
Is there any kind of consensus for making BSD-style patch naming illegal in Portfiles ? --anders
On Nov 4, 2007, at 03:22, Anders F Björklund wrote:
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
+ +patchfiles patch-http.c +
FYI: The patchfile should be named "patch-http.c.diff". "port lint" has some other recommendations for this portfile as well:
Is there any kind of consensus for making BSD-style patch naming illegal in Portfiles ?
By "BSD-style patch naming" I assume you mean omitting ".diff" from the end of the name? I did bring this up before; here is the thread: http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2007-October/ 003139.html In follow-ups, nox and jmpp agreed that using ".diff" at the end of the filename is a good idea. Therefore, "port lint" recommends this. The new guide has not yet been updated recommend using ".diff" at the end of patchfile names, and the examples there still don't. The guide should be updated.
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
In follow-ups, nox and jmpp agreed that using ".diff" at the end of the filename is a good idea. Therefore, "port lint" recommends this.
Right, and in follow-ups I didn't... But it's not _that_ important to me, as I'm really not used to either tradition but have normally been using -p1 patches instead in RPM. (named something like foo-1.2.3-bar.patch) So if it is now required, then so be it I suppose. :-P --anders
On Nov 4, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Anders F Björklund wrote:
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
In follow-ups, nox and jmpp agreed that using ".diff" at the end of the filename is a good idea. Therefore, "port lint" recommends this.
Right, and in follow-ups I didn't... But it's not _that_ important to me, as I'm really not used to either tradition but have normally been using -p1 patches instead in RPM. (named something like foo-1.2.3-bar.patch) So if it is now required, then so be it I suppose. :-P
It's not required, but rather advised ;-) The "patch" message is already conveyed by the "patch-*" part in the suggested file name, and the .diff extension helps some editors handle the file better. Overall, it's a simple thing that does not warrant too much bikeshed, though consistency is a good thing. Regards,... -jmpp
participants (3)
-
Anders F Björklund
-
Juan Manuel Palacios
-
Ryan Schmidt