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>