On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:26:35PM -0800, Maxim Sobolev wrote: [...] > >>>>Vasil Dimov wrote: > >>>>>On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:51:40AM +0000, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > >>>>>>sobomax 2006-11-03 03:51:40 UTC > >>>>>[...] > >>>>>>Added files: > >>>>>> devel/mpatrol/files patch-..::..::src::mptrace.c [...] > The Porters Handbook unfortunately is out of sync with reality.
Which exacly part of the "Porters Handbook" do you mean? If you really believe so, please send a patch siggesting to fix it. > Long > time ago, when the trees were big and the sky was blue, we did have the > strict rule saying that any patch should be named patch-[a-z][a-z]. It > was OK until the ports collection had reached the point when keeping > individual history of each patch-XY became important enough, which you > can't do with names like patch-XY. At that point "vote" was called to > allow "free" names for patchfiles (but consistent within each port), > provided that those names don't break any existing packaging tools. The > result of the vote was positive. I think the result of this vote/discussion is this commit: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/book.sgml.diff?r1=1.549&r2=1.550 by krion. It explicitly says that one should not use `:' when naming new patches. > If somebody has sneaked its own definition into Porters Handbook I can't > care less. I would not call this sneaking. > It is not official unless majority of active porters agree > upon it. You want a vote or what? I really believe this discussion is going nowhere. -- Vasil Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] % The guitar screamed like an angel who had just discovered why it was on the wrong side. -- (Terry Pratchett, Soul Music)
pgpkP2VdxQl0C.pgp
Description: PGP signature
