Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:21:53 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 193185] [stage] net/ipsorc MASTER_SITES LICENSE WWW take maintainership Message-ID: <bug-193185-13-KvNlD1mge6@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-193185-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-193185-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193185 --- Comment #12 from John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #10) > Created attachment 146767 [details] > net/ipsorc OBSOLETES previous. JM is really pickey about tab stops -- grr... > > net/ipsorc > > Now it just feels like you're dogging me. But OK. Here you go. > I uploaded a modified copy of the previous. The tab wasn't the reason, I would have mentioned it but pushed it forward for the committer to fix (By the way, if you are relying on committers to fix little things, that's the wrong attitude. You should be shooting for zero corrections to your patches). > Honestly, no sour grapes, mind you. But the previous, and most > all I can remember, where others were concerned, had the same number > of tabs on the additional MASTER_SITES line. I'm just trying to > find the pattern here. So I can keep with it. Not really complaining, > per se. What are you talking about? I've corrected dozens of tabs for you before. You thought those were getting committed? If so, it means you aren't reviewing what gets committed versus what you submitted. (which I suspected because the same issues kept getting submitted) The standard tab number is two. Three can be used, but not on the PORTNAME, MAINTAINER, MASTER_SITE blocks. There it's always two. If your editor is set to anything other than 8 for tabs, then change it because it will cause you to commit badly tabbed lines. > As to the pkg-plist %%PORTDOCS%%@dirrm %%DOCSDIR%% line. > No. I thought the same as you. But check-plist insisted > I use the method I have in there, currently. I double checked, and > all is added && removed, as expected/anticipated. So that's why it's > put in that way. > > Thanks, John, and I hope that's really "it" this time. ;) Here we are again. You're just 100% sure about I guess. Never mind that it makes no sense to remove the files under %%PORTSDOCS%% but leave the directory? Do you see any other ports where only the directory is removed? This is check-plist misleading you. It's giving you the wrong advice. let's back up, why did you add this line: "DOCSDIR= ${PREFIX}/share/doc/${PORTNAME}" DOCSDIR is already defined. Why are you redefining it? and what's up with this line? "${INSTALL_DATA} ${PORTDOCS:S,^,${WRKSRC}/,} ${STAGEDIR}${DOCSDIR}" didn't we already establish that "(cd ${WRKSRC} && ${INSTALL_DATA} ${PORTSDOCS} ${STAGEDIR}${DOCSDIR})" is preferred? To be fair, what you have should work, but using regex unnecessary doesn't make it easier to maintain. You did the same on SCRIPTS. Did you see another port do that or it is something you invented? Something is wrong. It might be a bad check-plist logic caused by your redefinition of DOCSDIR, I'm not sure, but %%PORTSDOC%% definitely doesn't look right and it shouldn't be in pkg-plist at all. Adding it there could be masking a problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-193185-13-KvNlD1mge6>