svn commit: r383894 - in head/ports-mgmt/portlint: . src

[John Marino]

On 8/3/2015 9:19 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, John Marino wrote:
>>> is wrong about emulators/wine-devel/files/patch-partial-reservation 
>>> and especially emulators/wine-devel/files/patch-dlls_kernel32_Makefile.in
>>> or lang/gcc6-devel/patch-unwind-ia64.h ?
>> Please don't relax it.
> 
> It is overy strict, so relaxing is the right thing to do.

No, it's not.
We're trying to avoid patch churn.

> Yes, except there are now lots of false positives.  That is
> a problem.  It renders portlint less useful (to the point that
> I am considering to not use it any longer since it's become an 
> uphill battle submitting patches and bug reports regarding the 
> increasing number of false positives coming from portlint).

| grep -v ?


>> It's just a portlint warning, you don't have to worry about it 
>> for existing patching.  It's basically there for new patches.
> 
> I am not planning to use `make makepatch`for new patches, either.
> My patches are perfectly fine and do not exhibit the problem you
> are concerned about, so why warn about them?  In fact, `make
> makepatch` would remove key information in some cases.
> 
> (Warning about patches that cary specific timezone information, 
> not ones that lack "UTC" makes sense, of course.)
> 

If it's the "mass generation" aspect of makefile you are objecting to
(which I don't blame), there's a tool I wrote in ports-mgmt/genpatch
that provides 3 tools generate/regenerate single patches in the
preferred format (portfix, dupe, genpatch - the former which wraps the
latter with an edit command).  They come with man pages too.

John