Something wrong with portlint?
Joe Marcus Clarke
marcus at FreeBSD.org
Tue Jan 24 09:20:52 PST 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:32:09 -0500 Frank Laszlo
> <laszlof at vonostingroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul Schmehl wrote:
>>> I had all sorts of problems with portlint yesterday. I kept getting
>>> errors that the COMMENT was missing even though it wasn't. I got
>>> complaints about things being out of order when they weren't. (X is
>>> in the MAINTAINER section - but it wasn't.) In the end, I had to
>>> submit the ports even though they wouldn't pass portlint because *I*
>>> knew they were done correctly (and they worked without errors), not
>>> because portlint gave its stamp of approval.
>>>
>>> Has there been a recent code change that might have caused this? (I'm
>>> running 5.4 SECURITY on an i386 processor.)
>>>
>>> Paul Schmehl (pauls at utdallas.edu)
>>> Adjunct Information Security Officer
>>> University of Texas at Dallas
>>> AVIEN Founding Member
>>> http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
>>>
>> There has been some extensive port framework changes (see -ports
>> archive) If you send the PR in question, I'd gladly take a look at it
>> for you. Thanks
>>
> There's actually two - 92239 and 92241
In 92239, you moved the CATEGORIES line to the wrong location. If you
put CATEGORIES right PORTVERSION, it passes portlint just fine. With
92241, you have a blank line between PORTVERSION and CATEGORIES. You
can't do that.
portlint is fine.
Joe
- --
Joe Marcus Clarke
FreeBSD GNOME Team :: gnome at FreeBSD.org
FreeNode / #freebsd-gnome
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFD1mHwb2iPiv4Uz4cRArOXAJ0ZNEVc9Fnbqpu/2u8jS5DFDB2+xwCfanvs
ifc5usvxc73h7Lf3c2yLz7M=
=rbZh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the freebsd-ports
mailing list