On Nov 12, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Joshua Root <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2014-11-12 17:14 , Lawrence Velázquez wrote: >> On Nov 10, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Bradley Giesbrecht <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I don't know that I understand these variant checks, they seem to not >>> produce the same result in all cases: >>> >>> http://trac.macports.org/browser/tags/release_2_3_2/base/src/port/port.tcl#L289 >>> http://trac.macports.org/browser/tags/release_2_3_2/base/src/port/port.tcl#L1752 >>> http://trac.macports.org/browser/tags/release_2_3_2/base/src/macports1.0/macports.tcl#L730 >>> http://trac.macports.org/browser/tags/release_2_3_2/base/src/port1.0/portutil.tcl#L2289 >>> >>> Would a proc for testing variant name sanity be worth the effort? >> >> It would probably be a good idea to decide on an authoritative specification >> and consolidate verification in a single place. > > I think you mean validation? We don't actually do that anywhere at the > moment. All the places above are just parsing.
If we did create authoritative validation service, would portutil.tcl be a good location? Regards, Bradley Giesbrecht (pixilla)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
