cvs commit: ports/shells/bash1/files patch-af patch-am patch-an patch-ao patch-ap patch-aq patch-ar patch-as patch-at patch-builtins-common.c patch-builtins-common.h patch-error.c patch-error.h patch-print_cmd.c patch-readline-display.c ...

[Michael Edenfield]

* David E. O'Brien <obrien at FreeBSD.org> [030831 04:06]:
> obrien      2003/08/31 01:08:48 PDT
>   Log:

>   Fix build on -current (varargs -> stdarg)
>   [don't propagate the poorly named patch files from the PR]


As the submitter of the PR I'd like to apologize for the poorly named
patch files.  I was just following the example of all the existing patch
files in most of the ports I'd fixed over the weekend.  

Is is preferred not to name patches patch-aa?  And if so why are there
so many of those in the ports tree already?  Just wanted to know before
I go do any more of these.

--Mike

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/attachments/20030831/f89411aa/attachment.bin