cvs commit: ports/converters/p5-String-Multibyte Makefile ports/converters/p5-Unicode-IMAPUtf7 Makefile ports/databases/p5-CDB_File-Generator Makefile ports/databases/p5-DBD-Excel Makefile ports/databases/p5-DBD-LDAP Makefile ports/databases/p5-DBIx-AnyDBD Makefile ...

Pav Lucistnik pav at
Wed Sep 21 02:05:37 PDT 2005

Lars Thegler píše v st 21. 09. 2005 v 10:27 +0200:
> Doug Barton wrote:
> >>> In at least one case (the port above) the pkg-descr file was not 
> >>> updated to
> >>> reflect this change. Is this something that would be useful to do?
> >>
> >> I believe the 'signature' in pkg-descr has the same semantics as the 
> >> 'Whom:' line in Makefile, indicating the initial creator of the port. 
> >> As least that is how I read porters-handbook.
> >
> > I read "your name" in 3.2.1 as meaning "the name of the person who 
> > maintains the port." The creator's name is memorialized in the comment 
> > section of the Makefile, I don't see how duplicating that information in 
> > pkg-descr would be useful.
> I see you point; however, the exact same reasoning can also be applied 
> to the maintainer name in the Makefile.
> So in either case, it seems the 'signature' in pkg-descr is redundant. 
> Either it reflects the creator's name, duplicating the comment section, 
> or it reflects the maintainer, duplicating the MAINTAINER= line.
> I wonder what the rationale for the 'recommendation' in 3.2.1 was? Anyone?

I believe it just documented the common practice.  I'm personally go
with removing the recommendation.

Pav Lucistnik <pav at>
              <pav at>

A two-eyed cyclops would be a bicyclops.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :

More information about the cvs-ports mailing list