Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:40:08 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Ryan Steinmetz <zi@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r321677 - in head/security/duo: . files Message-ID: <20130624124008.GA86735@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20130624121917.GA85793@exodus.zi0r.com> References: <201306241155.r5OBtgQj057667@svn.freebsd.org> <20130624120316.GB79369@FreeBSD.org> <20130624121917.GA85793@exodus.zi0r.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 08:19:18AM -0400, Ryan Steinmetz wrote:
> On (06/24/13 12:03), Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> >> @${CAT} ${PKGMESSAGE}
> >
> >It would be nice if cat(1) had been surrounded with ${ECHO_MSG}'s to ensure
> >consistent padding when installing from package vs. ports. If any padding
> >is present in the pkg-message file itself, it should be removed.
>
> This might be a good idea for inclusion in bsd.port.mk. I believe that
> the current 'norm' is to simply cat pkg-message.
Not really. Lots of ports already use the correct form. As for inclusion
in bpm, I've thought about this (like introducing DISPLAY_PKGMESSAGE knob),
however, some ports do not just cat(1) it, but piping it through sed(1) and
alikes. There could be other edge cases I currently do not have on the top
of my head. That said, for now, it's preferable (although not strictly
required) to pad these cat's with echo's manually; unless our new pkg(1)
tools no longer do the padding like the legacy ones...
Obviously, mostly only perfectionists care about these whitespace issues.
If you're not one of them, feel free to ignore what I say. :-)
./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130624124008.GA86735>