Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:08:10 +0700 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@nsu.ru> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/games Makefile ports/games/duke3d Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-message pkg-plist ports/games/duke3d/files README.bsd fix.sh patch-aa patch-ab patch-ac patch-ad patch-ae wrapper.sh Message-ID: <20040419110810.GA24385@regency.nsu.ru> In-Reply-To: <20040419103101.GB26102@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200404181922.i3IJMkTf044706@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040419032304.GA61048@regency.nsu.ru> <20040419103101.GB26102@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 03:31:01AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 10:23:04AM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 12:22:46PM -0700, Clement Laforet wrote: > > While this is certainly great stuff, it should probably be noted that > > ``patch-xx'' naming scheme is considered deprecated for the sake of > > ``patch-full::path::to::file.ext'' one. If it's not stated explicitly > > in porters' handbook, then it should. > > No! "::" in patch file names isn't the official way of naming > files. We've been thru this several times during the past 2 years. > Look at ports/Tools/scripts/patchtool.py. The file separator is "_". While particular choice for a separator is arguable, the general scheme for patch-files is not, right? FWIW, that was my point, not `::' vs. whatever. As a side note, I don't really see any problem with `::' or `-'. Contrary, `_' occurs a lot more frequently in filenames, so... ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040419110810.GA24385>