From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jan 24 16:07:57 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5C7616A41F
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:07:57 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from pauls@utdallas.edu)
Received: from smtp1.utdallas.edu (smtp1.utdallas.edu [129.110.10.12])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14FBA43D6A
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:07:55 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from pauls@utdallas.edu)
Received: from utd59514.utdallas.edu (utd59514.utdallas.edu [129.110.3.28])
	by smtp1.utdallas.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F838388E15
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:07:54 -0600 (CST)
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:07:54 -0600
From: Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu>
To: ports@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <6E2E84047A522AA3CF4F3F8D@utd59514.utdallas.edu>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: 
Subject: Something wrong with portlint?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:07:57 -0000

I had all sorts of problems with portlint yesterday.  I kept getting errors 
that the COMMENT was missing even though it wasn't.  I got complaints about 
things being out of order when they weren't.  (X is in the MAINTAINER 
section - but it wasn't.)  In the end, I had to submit the ports even 
though they wouldn't pass portlint because *I* knew they were done 
correctly (and they worked without errors), not because portlint gave its 
stamp of approval.

Has there been a recent code change that might have caused this?  (I'm 
running 5.4 SECURITY on an i386 processor.)

Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/