Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 04 Sep 2014 09:06:17 +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-xnszqslUJU@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=3D193185

--- Comment #14 from C Hutchinson <portmaster@bsdforge.com> ---
(In reply to John Marino from comment #12)
> (In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #10)
> > Created attachment 146767 [details]
> > net/ipsorc OBSOLETES previous. JM is really pickey about tab stops -- g=
rr...
> >=20
> > net/ipsorc
> >=20
> > Now it just feels like you're dogging me. But OK. Here you go.
> > I uploaded a modified copy of the previous.
>=20
>=20
> 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).=20
No, No. I had no intention of pushing anything off. It was all meant to be

tongue-in-cheek. It [single tab] was mentioned, seemed insignificant. So I
joked about it. But, as mentioned further down.
"I'm just trying to find the pattern here" {so I can stick with it]

>=20
>=20
> > 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.
>=20
>=20
> What are you talking about?  I've corrected dozens of tabs for you before=
.=20
> You thought those were getting committed?  If so, it means you aren't
> reviewing what gets committed versus what you submitted.  (which I suspec=
ted
> because the same issues kept getting submitted)
>=20
> The standard tab number is two.  Three can be used, but not on the PORTNA=
ME,
> 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 cau=
se
> you to commit badly tabbed lines.

No, no. See; no sour grapes && not complaining, per se. Just saying, not
serious.
Again, as also stated; "Just trying to find the pattern here". So I can get
comfortable with it, and use it.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> > 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.
> >=20
> > Thanks, John, and I hope that's really "it" this time. ;)
>=20
>=20
> 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 remove=
d?
>=20
> This is check-plist misleading you.  It's giving you the wrong advice.
>=20
> let's back up, why did you add this line:
> "DOCSDIR=3D	${PREFIX}/share/doc/${PORTNAME}"
>=20
> DOCSDIR is already defined.  Why are you redefining it?=20=20
>=20
> and what's up with this line?
> "${INSTALL_DATA} ${PORTDOCS:S,^,${WRKSRC}/,} ${STAGEDIR}${DOCSDIR}"
>=20
> didn't we already establish that
> "(cd ${WRKSRC} && ${INSTALL_DATA} ${PORTSDOCS} ${STAGEDIR}${DOCSDIR})"
Right you are! Definitely, my bad.
I took a short cut here, and _really_ should have known better.
In short; I tried to make what was already there work. Rather than do it
_correctly_
When check-plist complained, the impression I got, was that it didn't like
the lines deleting the doc files. So I simply attempted to blow away the
docs dir that was added, which ultimately clobbered the files, as well.
It was clumsy, and I _really_ should have clobbered all the lines, and
added correct ones. In the end the block would have been shorter, anyway.
Prettier too.

>=20
>=20
> 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 invente=
d?
>=20
> 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.
It came with the original. But it clobbers the added folder in share/docs.
So I left it. If it bothers you. I'll re-create it from scratch.

Thanks, John.

--Chris

--=20
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-xnszqslUJU>