There is no detriment that I can discern by naming patchfiles "patch- *.diff" as port lint recommends. There is a detriment by not following this convention which has been discussed at length before on the list. This warning has been in port lint for quite some time already. It's just now been made an automated email. On Feb 6, 2008, at 13:45, Landon Fuller wrote:

So I just received the following automated e-mail. While I think automated portlint is great, I'm wondering why we need a new ".diff" Official Policy just to appease certain people's editors.

Begin forwarded message:

...

From: noreply@macports.org Date: February 6, 2008 05:17:47 PST To: landonf@macports.org Subject: [MacPorts Lint] Portfile Lint Errors for: dpkg

Portfile: dpkg

Errors: Warning: Line 4 should be a newline (after PortSystem) Warning: Line 33 has trailing whitespace before newline Warning: Patchfile patch-config.h.in does not follow the source patch naming policy "patch-*.diff" Warning: Patchfile patch-configure does not follow the source patch naming policy "patch-*.diff" Warning: Patchfile patch-configure.in does not follow the source patch naming policy "patch-*.diff" Warning: Patchfile patch-lib_utils.c does not follow the source patch naming policy "patch-*.diff" Warning: Patchfile patch-lib_tarfn.c does not follow the source patch naming policy "patch-*.diff" Warning: Patchfile patch-main_remove.c does not follow the source patch naming policy "patch-*.diff" Warning: Patchfile patch-utils_Makefile.in does not follow the source patch naming policy "patch-*.diff" Warning: Patchfile patch-main_archives.c does not follow the source patch naming policy "patch-*.diff" Warning: Patchfile patch-archtable does not follow the source patch naming policy "patch-*.diff" Warning: Patchfile patch-include_parsedump.h does not follow the source patch naming policy "patch-*.diff" Warning: Patchfile patch-utils_start-stop-daemon.c does not follow the source patch naming policy "patch-*.diff" Warning: Patchfile bsd/patch-main_help.c does not follow the source patch naming policy "patch-*.diff"

_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev

On Feb 6, 2008, at 15:33, Landon Fuller wrote:

On Feb 6, 2008, at 13:23, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

...

There is no detriment that I can discern by naming patchfiles "patch-*.diff" as port lint recommends. There is a detriment by not following this convention which has been discussed at length before on the list.

There is a detriment. The patchfiles aren't syntax hilighted as C, and instead are hilighted as a patch file. This is purely a matter of personal preference, which is a bad reason to dictate policy.

But that's just it. It is an error to highlight a diff file as if it were a C file. A diff file is *not* a C file! A C compiler will not compile it. And a C syntax highlighter will not necessarily be able to syntax highlight it correctly. Your own dpkg port gives us a great example in patch-main_archives.c. The patch has three blocks. The last line of context in the second block is the first line of a multiline comment. The last line of the multiline comment is not shown, therefore the C syntax highlighter thinks the entire rest of the file is part of the comment. See: http://www.ryandesign.com/tmp/patch-main_archives.c.png I've given this rationale before, two months ago: http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2007-December/ 003823.html And two months before that: http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2007-October/ 003139.html I guess I'm repeating myself but I don't know what else to do. I feel like I've made all the relevant arguments already.

...

This warning has been in port lint for quite some time already. It's just now been made an automated email.

Yes, and getting an e-mail about something I don't think is a problem is frustrating.

Then I guess we need to decide whether it is or is not a problem, and if it isn't, then get rid of the port lint check for this. But I still think it is a problem, for all the reasons I've stated today and earlier, and that port lint should warn.