On Dec 11, 2007, at 15:51, Weissmann Markus wrote:
On 11.12.2007, at 19:28, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
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.
There are two kinds of files in the files directory: Patches and
other files. Patches are prefixed with "patch-" which makes it
obvious that they are patches already.
To the best of my knowledge, Mac OS X cannot assign a file to an
application based on a filename prefix. It can only do so based on a
filename extension.
And for viewing them: How do you highlight diff files?
Currently, TextWrangler uses no syntax highlighting on diff files.
This is better than the incorrect syntax highlighting that could
result by trying to highlight based on the rules of the diffed file.
There is such a thing as a multiline comment, or a multiline string.
It's possible a diff might include either the opening or closing
quote or comment mark, but not the other one, which would result in
chaotic highlighting. I have seen this before.
In the future, I might write my own syntax highlighting rules for
diff files which could, for example, color lines beginning with a +
or - in green and red, respectively, similar to what we see in the
Trac repository browser or the commit mails.
If they are C diffs you could highlight them as C code and if they
are Python diffs you can highlight the Python keywords. Your
argument actually speaks against the redundant ".patch" extension.
Really, we have already had this discussion:
http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2007-October/
003150.html
I'll say it again: the difference of two C files is not a C file.
(Just try compiling it.) The difference of two Python files is not a
Python file. (Just try running it through a Python interpreter.)
Instead, a difference is a diff file, formatted in standard diff
format. Hence, one should use the .diff extension.
To the earlier comment that the old guide said to use "patch-
whatever", in fact, the old guide said two different things. In one
place, it said to use "patch-whatever" but in another place it said
to use "patch-whatever.diff". My earlier request was to pick one
recommendation. And for the reasons I outlined, then and now, I
recommended that we should use the .diff extension. This was agreed
to (at least by jmpp) and "port lint" was updated to include a check
for misnamed patch files.
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
