ports/66230: Mk/bsd.*.mk: inconsistent tab settings

Oliver Eikemeier eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com
Tue May 4 00:20:24 UTC 2004

The following reply was made to PR ports/66230; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com>
To: Mark Linimon <linimon at lonesome.com>
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit at FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: ports/66230: Mk/bsd.*.mk: inconsistent tab settings
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 02:12:34 +0200

 Mark Linimon wrote:
 > On Tue, 4 May 2004, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
 >>- Tell me that CVS history is more important that misaligned lines.
 > CVS history is more important than misaligned lines.  Sorry, no
 > smiley available.
 You might be right here, although you could have spared a smiley for
 > Anytime you have CVS IDs in the 200-500 range, unless there is an
 > absolutely overwhelming reason to change things, it's already too
 > late, no matter how brain-damaged the original indentation was.  IMHO.
 ... you will lose annotate, or at least have to go back to the version
 that changed things. Otherwise I don't know what CVS IDs have to do with
 > If this doesn't convince, then please think about the >80 PRs that
 > affect these files, whose patches will suddenly cease to apply cleanly.
 > (Almost all of them apply against bsd.port.mk, which is the most
 > problematic in terms of the indentation; it is also the one with the
 > highest CVS ID).
 It is easy to convert these patches to the new tab settings, you can even
 do this with sed. Not a real objection.
 > This is not to mention all the local PRs that people have against
 > bsd.port.mk.  (I have heard in the past that some people don't submit
 > some local PRs against the framework because the queue is so long.  I,
 > myself, have no firm data on this).
 You mean patches? Jep, there should be an easier way to try out patches,
 maybe an experimental bsd.port.mk branch, or an patches directory, where
 proposed patches are collected for public review.
 > Disclaimer: yes, I am one such person, but my changes are fairly
 > modular -- it is others that I would expect to have worse problems.
 My problem is that some of my patches get incompatible - i.e. if I want
 them to apply to a virgin copy of bsd.port.mk then they don't apply when
 combined. Therefore it is sometimes very difficult to do real development.
 But this is a totally different problem.

More information about the freebsd-ports-bugs mailing list