Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:45:08 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> Cc: Thomas Gellekum <tg@FreeBSD.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT modules ports/audio Makefileports/audio/openal Makefile ports/audio/openal/files md5ports/audio/openal/patches patch-configure.in patch-src:alc:alc_context.cpatch-src:threads:posixthreads.c ports/audio/openal/pkg COMMENT ... Message-ID: <39D0A864.B706D861@FreeBSD.org> References: <200009261212.FAA21539@freefall.freebsd.org> <39D09D29.D8BB4D9A@FreeBSD.org> <20000926082735.Z30130@puck.firepipe.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Will Andrews wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 03:57:13PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > Hmm, the history repeats itself - handbook clearly states that patchfiles > > should be named patch-??. Please either write down your proposal and let us > > discuss amedments to the rules until we agree upon the new standards or please > > conform to the current rules. > > The current rules for patches are rather sketchy. Nope, they are quite specific (please read appropriate section of Porter's Handbook). > I don't really care > much as long as they are applied in the right order. Hence, I doubt the > rules for patchfile naming needs to be enforced even if it is in the > handbook. I will, however, enforce to anal retentive levels certain > other rules. I strongly disagree. Rules *are* rules, no matter now stupid they are. As I said earlier (many times in fact) if you feel that the current rules is stupid please come with appropriate proposal and let us discuss it untill consensul will be reached how those rules should be changed for better. Only after that you can use new scheme, not otherwise . -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?39D0A864.B706D861>