#44777: p5-xml-twig @3.39 update to 3.48 (+add p5.18, p5.20, +formating) -------------------------------+------------------------------- Reporter: Joel.Brogniart@… | Owner: frank.mcpherson@… Type: update | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: haspatch Port: p5-xml-twig | -------------------------------+------------------------------- Comment (by larryv@…): Replying to [comment:5 Joel.Brogniart@…]:
Is there a rule for Portfile file names in such a case. For one patch, I use Portfile.orig and Portfile to calculate the diff. But with chained patches do I use the same names again or could I use something like Portfile.orig, Portfile.1, …, Portfile?
Don’t worry too much about it; just make sure they apply. It’s trivial for the committer to use `patch FILENAME` instead of `patch -p`. Replying to [comment:6 Joel.Brogniart@…]:
One more question. Adding 5.18 and 5.20 to perl branches should be done in the "cosmetic" patch or in the fonctional one?
The whole point of the cosmetic patch is that it only changes the way the Portfile //looks//, not the way the Portfile //works//. Adding subports clearly changes how the Portfile works, so it is a functional change that should go in the functional patch. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/44777#comment:8> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X