Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 21:22:31 +0100 (CET) From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org>, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r401299 - head/security/openssh-portable/files Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.20.1512022114451.3929@anthias> In-Reply-To: <20151112021225.GB43902@FreeBSD.org> References: <201511112121.tABLLjO6051679@repo.freebsd.org> <20151112021225.GB43902@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:21:45PM +0000, Bryan Drewery wrote: >> New Revision: 401299 >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/401299 >> >> Log: >> Make portlint stop spamming me. It's gotten quite silly. Thanks for the hint, Bryan! I think I'll copy this. :-) > I hope this is a temporary measure, even though portlint(1) can indeed > get annoying at times. That said, I still don't see the problem with > simply ignoring warnings that do not apply in certain particular case. Of course there is. It hides real issues. On some of my ports I now get three warnings of this kind (false positives, by the way) plus at least two more since someone modified my ports without running portlint or at least filing a fix/enhancement request against portlint. >> WARN: /root/svn/ports/security/openssh-portable/files/patch-auth.c: >> patch was not generated using ``make makepatch''. It is recommended >> to use ``make makepatch'' when you need to [re-]generate a patch to >> ensure proper patch format. > As John had said on IRC, this helps to get consistent patches, because > prople rarely think about these little details ("repo churn? who cares > about it") and portlint(1) warning gives them simple and straight course > of action. Yet it's true that the check could probably be made somewhat > smarter than simple grepping for "UTC". Yes, the check in portlint should be improved. I understand there is a patch format that is explicitly considered undesirable by some. And there is one that some consider desirable. Alas, right now portlint warns about everything that is not in that "desirable" bucket as opposed to only warning about those in the "explicitly undesirable" bucket. Which means those in neither category incorrectly get flagged. As long as portlint warns about lang/gcc5-devel/files/patch-unwind-ia64.h lang/gcc6-devel/files/patch-build-without-bootstrap emulators/wine-devel/files/patch-dlls_kernel32_Makefile.in I consider that check overeager. Gerald
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.LSU.2.20.1512022114451.3929>