From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Thu Feb 25 12:38:02 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1928562006; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:38:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbeich@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:6074::16:84]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DmXPk5JjPz4dhv; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:38:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbeich@freebsd.org) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1614256682; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=GT7YtiiKkBO/Wr8ST40m3LjLjNwPUyqLp568dPI/a88=; b=qqKvnRTciP0pGeywdWiux7mwzrxoWPRFCCrBEcc76sSyRu4u8uPw0GsNc5voH3CvzQ6XN0 TpEyqb06JD/Xk5ATIpCTpmsY7gzSo6AlFksHSDiM/nrcVpJluZyFA51CuuP4UhGV9u02ZW a0xYm/xMCmBMJ6Doike32b25513Ls4lmIiGE26nwQin54RvYdeVTpSanz08dzr9J7rYyro 9cBkW0aqqbUppGyVTE2OtrFu28jTOFJtVdFN8YpgaOtYpxG1LaLUixSxdhAuAa8CmWdxa0 fQ6fRqb+0QCRd+s1hRvQEic1V1OChzh/h6Jdz7rsB5k8aUeBbOIFMvDIUftlgg== Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1354) id ADE3216C15; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:38:02 +0000 (UTC) From: Jan Beich To: Mathieu Arnold Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r566529 - head/x11/foot References: <202102251130.11PBUM4M013317@repo.freebsd.org> <20210225115005.ebfocnpwupvnjubk@aching.in.mat.cc> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:37:59 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20210225115005.ebfocnpwupvnjubk@aching.in.mat.cc> (Mathieu Arnold's message of "Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:50:05 +0100") Message-ID: <7dmw-4920-wny@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1614256682; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=GT7YtiiKkBO/Wr8ST40m3LjLjNwPUyqLp568dPI/a88=; b=WvLSYFMKz/SAmfUL/rac8i3RMjBXu3poNoG+KVbVpRTMcCHv770M2Ulb9VRrCX906/GQOi lb4zH39vWQWnk4WUFB0hc7H82G2U3G7PvOkISzLisYe0sBOPRC/JB5NDdImni39EWwGbCs HluRVi3qfpiLr6wlCK14QclOK/oVLNEFUfgBukCuZW1rFA5904dwpXp+NmFAtyrlqztpnB Ii0KcxzNW2wOJ97KxsQ8jewvjDs8jHAzlugk0ys8fokfArHPgOVUuWPrTShkBmunyt9oi6 +Y73YR8kdpfaiI2zrHJWTnAQ4V/Ze5/cQbEilt3wRffrjlU4955UQhB1iDo7yw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=dkim; d=freebsd.org; t=1614256682; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=i5BcuW+iUObXvAdZ8V/itn1tWZ+AhOidTAFtE8BTqt/sr5Iu2nq8X81zxL6CoUZPBlAFul s/8V7EF5hjCJoW93EeUPAArV0yD/LIfI49SbvvBJdTke5aqxkaKD7H2nOheUgpklUCIFC9 V5Jy1X+Lg+O7TOz+X8jrQce6Eqp94JCfADQSBvJgMy/4ZC0HSQ1jrWbAsh+f+766xgHIRd khQt0hvrNsr9MugJaXDPILNwNF8jREIuRYjRF516+ElBro8l0i9Y8Lrwgz8eW24yt5Fg24 zuESXR3oa5i0LhbCrLhol+QfL9YXCgdkDkx7f+DKqqVsqKMe8opAFdWUKbpv0Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx1.freebsd.org; none X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:38:02 -0000 Mathieu Arnold writes: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:30:22AM +0000, Jan Beich wrote: > >> +post-patch: terminfo-patch >> +terminfo-patch: >> + @${REINPLACE_CMD} '/datadir/s/terminfo/site-&/' ${WRKSRC}/meson.build > > This seems overengineered, there is no post-patch target in the > Makefile, so, why create a new target, and hook it up to a non existing > target, instead of just using a regular post-patch target? The whole conditional was self-contained, so if someone added a post-patch for all FreeBSD releases (e.g., under portmgr blanket) they wouldn't have to test on -CURRENT separately. > If there is a good reason for that, it is not obvious, and the reason > needs to be documented in the Makefile. I've found another style bug (= vs. +=) and fixed in r566530.