On Dec 8, 2007, at 02:30, Landon Fuller wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Don't change this now, but remember for next time that the first
revision of a given port version is 0, not 1. In the future, just
remove the revision line when upgrading a port's version to get
the default revision of 0.
The default is helpful (I use it), but what's -wrong- with being
explicit?
Nothing's wrong with specifying "revision 0", certainly. It's just
not necessary. Mostly, I was pointing out that the revision should
have been 0, not 1.
-patchfiles patch-AU-configure patch-AU-
src__plugins__macosx__ao_macosx.c
+patchfiles patch-configure
Patchfiles should be named "patch-whatever.diff". See "port lint".
I guess the same question here. Is there really something wrong
with not using the .diff extension? These patches match the
original naming guidelines, but they were just guidelines.
I've addressed this before, but my objection is that files should be
named with an extension that identifies their content. Nevermind if
you think filename extensions are a good or bad idea in general. On
Mac OS X, they're a good idea, because you can associate files with
programs based on the file's extension. If I want all diff files
opened in TextWrangler, which I do, then I want to be able to inform
the OS of that. If you don't name the diff files with a consistent
extension (e.g. .diff), I cannot do this.
Furthermore, TextWrangler performs syntax highlighting based on the
filename extension. If you call a file patch-AU-
src__plugins__macosx__ao_macosx.c, TextWrangler thinks it is a C file
and tries to syntax-highlight it as a C file. But it is not a C file.
It is a difference of two C files. These are not equivalent.
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
