Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:45:43 +0100 From: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> To: Sam Lawrance <boris@brooknet.com.au> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/dk-milter Makefile pkg-plist ports/mail/dk-milter/files milter-dk.sh.in Message-ID: <1137494743.38904.41.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> In-Reply-To: <8F69821A-31A2-4E2D-A9E9-5CE1BEB2EE1F@brooknet.com.au> References: <200601150911.k0F9B6eG062331@repoman.freebsd.org> <43CC3140.9040604@FreeBSD.org> <8F69821A-31A2-4E2D-A9E9-5CE1BEB2EE1F@brooknet.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-A9DDBueFuahJW9TCed2p Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sam Lawrance p=ED=B9e v =FAt 17. 01. 2006 v 21:39 +1100: > Over to ports@ ... >=20 > On 17/01/2006, at 10:50 AM, Doug Barton wrote: >=20 > > Pav Lucistnik wrote: > >> pav 2006-01-15 09:11:04 UTC > >> > >> FreeBSD ports repository > >> > >> Modified files: > >> mail/dk-milter Makefile pkg-plist > >> mail/dk-milter/files milter-dk.sh.in > >> Log: > >> - Convert RC script to rc_subr > >> > >> PR: ports/91595 http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-=20 > >> pr.cgi?pr=3D91595 > >> Submitted by: Hirohisa Yamaguchi <umq@ueo.co.jp> > >> > >> Revision Changes Path > >> 1.6 +3 -2 ports/mail/dk-milter/Makefile > >> 1.2 +43 -48 ports/mail/dk-milter/files/milter-dk.sh.in > >> 1.2 +0 -1 ports/mail/dk-milter/pkg-plist > >> > >> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/mail/dk-milter/=20 > >> Makefile.diff?&r1=3D1.5&r2=3D1.6&f=3Dh > >> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/mail/dk-milter/files/=20 > >> milter-dk.sh.in.diff?&r1=3D1.1&r2=3D1.2&f=3Dh > >> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/mail/dk-milter/pkg-=20 > >> plist.diff?&r1=3D1.1&r2=3D1.2&f=3Dh > > > > It's not a big enough issue to warrant a change for this port, but in > > general it's a good idea if the name of the rc.d file is the same =20 > > as what > > the script PROVIDE's. This removes one potential source of =20 > > confusion for users. >=20 > Is it worth a patch to portlint? There are probably a stack of other =20 > rc-related things that could be checked for, too. For example, if an =20 > rc script is in the packing list, warn to use USE_RC_SUBR. Others? If an rc.d script is in the packing list! Old styled scripts are not affected. How will you check that from portlint? --=20 Pav Lucistnik <pav@oook.cz> <pav@FreeBSD.org> With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. -- RFC 1925 --=-A9DDBueFuahJW9TCed2p Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Toto je =?iso-8859-2?Q?digit=E1ln=EC?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?iso-8859-2?Q?_=E8=E1st?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBDzMrXntdYP8FOsoIRAlE4AKDNq4M/KuzpiaW0YhFuP0QLEWGjogCfYnsu U9xnC5GZu9q/vbXB5LpZ1GA= =VrsN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-A9DDBueFuahJW9TCed2p--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1137494743.38904.41.camel>