On 2014-11-16 06:04 , Bradley Giesbrecht wrote: > > 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?
Probably not, that would make it only accessible from portfile interpreter contexts. - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
