From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 24 17:20:52 2006 Return-Path: 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 9FCF116A422 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:20:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from marcus@FreeBSD.org) Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (bantam.cisco.com [64.102.19.199]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0703B43D48 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:20:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from marcus@FreeBSD.org) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from rooster.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id k0OHKoD00911; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:20:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from [171.69.215.93] (dhcp-171-69-215-93.cisco.com [171.69.215.93]) by rooster.cisco.com (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id k0OHKlm08370; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:20:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <43D661F0.5090802@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:20:48 -0500 From: Joe Marcus Clarke Organization: FreeBSD, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Macintosh/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Schmehl References: <6E2E84047A522AA3CF4F3F8D@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <43D65689.8050207@vonostingroup.com> <0CAD779515C871FE2C1AC21E@utd59514.utdallas.edu> In-Reply-To: <0CAD779515C871FE2C1AC21E@utd59514.utdallas.edu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.2.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Frank Laszlo Subject: Re: Something wrong with portlint? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:20:52 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul Schmehl wrote: > --On Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:32:09 -0500 Frank Laszlo > wrote: > >> Paul Schmehl wrote: >>> 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/ >>> >> There has been some extensive port framework changes (see -ports >> archive) If you send the PR in question, I'd gladly take a look at it >> for you. Thanks >> > There's actually two - 92239 and 92241 In 92239, you moved the CATEGORIES line to the wrong location. If you put CATEGORIES right PORTVERSION, it passes portlint just fine. With 92241, you have a blank line between PORTVERSION and CATEGORIES. You can't do that. portlint is fine. Joe - -- Joe Marcus Clarke FreeBSD GNOME Team :: gnome@FreeBSD.org FreeNode / #freebsd-gnome http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD1mHwb2iPiv4Uz4cRArOXAJ0ZNEVc9Fnbqpu/2u8jS5DFDB2+xwCfanvs ifc5usvxc73h7Lf3c2yLz7M= =rbZh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----