Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Shouldn't the patch be renamed "patch-xml2po_xml2po.py"?
http://geeklair.net/new_macports_guide/#development.patches.source
It should be called "patch-xml2po_xml2po.py.diff". The guide should be
updated to recommend this style.
I object to naming patchfiles with the original file's extension. The
file "patch-xml2po_xml2po.py" is *NOT* a Python file! It is a
difference of two Python files. Editors attempting to perform source
code highlighting based on the file extension will do so incorrectly
for files which are in fact diffs. Call the file what it is. Put
".diff" at the end.
Having one such patch file for each affected source file is the BSD
ports convention:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/slow-
patch.html
The MacPorts ones named as patch-whatever.diff can affect more than one
source file.
The old guide was contradictory, as it recommended one way in one
place and the other way in another place. Let's please standardize on
the format "patch-FOO.diff". According to "find . -name 'patch-*.diff'
| wc -l" we already have hundreds of patchfiles following this
convention.
Last thing I heard, both styles of patches were allowed in the MacPorts
Portfiles.
Outside of ports, it's common to have files named as foo-1.0-bar.patch,
which is
a patch for fixing "bar" in version 1.0 of "foo" - usually applied as
patch -p1.
--anders
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
