Opened 8 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
#52023 closed request (fixed)
nano: lint fixes, take maintainer
| Reported by: | grimreaper (Eitan Adler) | Owned by: | macports-tickets@… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | ports | Version: | 2.3.4 |
| Keywords: | haspatch | Cc: | |
| Port: | nano |
Description
Attachments (1)
Change History (7)
Changed 8 years ago by grimreaper (Eitan Adler)
comment:1 follow-up: 2 Changed 8 years ago by grimreaper (Eitan Adler)
comment:3 follow-up: 4 Changed 8 years ago by grimreaper (Eitan Adler)
Warning: Patchfile nawk.patch does not follow the source patch naming policy "patch-*.diff" from port lint --nitpick
but if we just switch to https and add me as maintainer I'd be happy too.
comment:4 follow-up: 5 Changed 8 years ago by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)
Replying to lists@…:
Warning: Patchfile nawk.patch does not follow the source patch naming policy "patch-*.diff"
Yes, there seems to be a feeling on the mailing lists that we should no longer feel so strictly bound to that naming convention, and many many patchfiles in the repository already do not follow it. As long as the file name is somehow indicative of what the patch does, that's probably good enough.
comment:5 Changed 8 years ago by raimue (Rainer Müller)
As long as we do not change the guide, this is still the active patch naming policy. I would go with the summary by Mihai: The file extension .diff should still be preferred, but the <identifier> mentioned in the guide should be descriptive and not be the filename being patched.
comment:6 Changed 8 years ago by kurthindenburg (Kurt Hindenburg)
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
done r152458
note I left the patch alone - nawk.patch is a generic patch that I have 18 of them on my system - I don't see a reason to change it
note: this moves a patch file: svn mv nawk.patch patch-nawk.diff