Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2) 
Date:      Sat, 3 Mar 2012 13:00:30 GMT
From:      Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>
To:        freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: ports/165623: Mk/bsd.comands.mk et al -- conflicting uses of ${FILE}
Message-ID:  <201203031300.q23D0Uxd082390@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help 
The following reply was made to PR ports/165623; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>
To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>
Cc: "bug-followup@freebsd.org" <bug-followup@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: ports/165623: Mk/bsd.comands.mk et al -- conflicting uses of ${FILE}
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 12:56:27 +0000

 --14dae9340a8fab5d8904ba56388f
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
 
 On 2 Mar 2012 23:37, "Matthew Seaman" <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>
 wrote:
 >
 > On 02/03/2012 21:20, Michael Scheidell wrote:
 > >  does portlint need to be upgraded to tell you to use ${FILE_CMD}
 instead
 > >  of ${FILE} ?
 >
 > Perhaps, but that's going to annoy the vast majority of people that use
 > ${FILE} to mean something other than the file(1) application.  I tend
 > towards the view that there's so much prior art, and that saying:
 >
 > .for FILE in ${LIST_OF_FILES}
 > ...
 > .endfor
 >
 > is so natural a construct that trying to make people do it differently
 > would be wildly unpopular.
 >
 
 Or we could put the portlint check in, and people who don't want to see it
 complain could use lowers for loop vars.
 
 Sorry to go on about this, but it's very important to differentiate,
 considering that their behaviour is very different from regular variables.
 
 Note that I withdraw my objection to FILE_CMD as per pointers from others :)
 
 Chris
 
 --14dae9340a8fab5d8904ba56388f
 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 <p><br>
 On 2 Mar 2012 23:37, &quot;Matthew Seaman&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:m.sea=
 man@infracaninophile.co.uk">m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk</a>&gt; wrote:<=
 br>
 &gt;<br>
 &gt; On 02/03/2012 21:20, Michael Scheidell wrote:<br>
 &gt; &gt; =A0does portlint need to be upgraded to tell you to use ${FILE_CM=
 D} instead<br>
 &gt; &gt; =A0of ${FILE} ?<br>
 &gt;<br>
 &gt; Perhaps, but that&#39;s going to annoy the vast majority of people tha=
 t use<br>
 &gt; ${FILE} to mean something other than the file(1) application. =A0I ten=
 d<br>
 &gt; towards the view that there&#39;s so much prior art, and that saying:<=
 br>
 &gt;<br>
 &gt; .for FILE in ${LIST_OF_FILES}<br>
 &gt; ...<br>
 &gt; .endfor<br>
 &gt;<br>
 &gt; is so natural a construct that trying to make people do it differently=
 <br>
 &gt; would be wildly unpopular.<br>
 &gt;</p>
 <p>Or we could put the portlint check in, and people who don&#39;t want to =
 see it complain could use lowers for loop vars.</p>
 <p>Sorry to go on about this, but it&#39;s very important to differentiate,=
  considering that their behaviour is very different from regular variables.=
 </p>
 <p>Note that I withdraw my objection to FILE_CMD as per pointers from other=
 s :)</p>
 <p>Chris</p>
 
 --14dae9340a8fab5d8904ba56388f--

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201203031300.q23D0Uxd082390>