From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Mon Aug 3 07:19:47 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0F7B9B2460; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 07:19:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from ainaz.pair.com (ainaz.pair.com [209.68.2.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0B671DFB; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 07:19:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from [172.20.5.141] (207.88.131.68.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.131.68]) by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1F113F46C; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 03:19:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 01:19:37 -0600 (MDT) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: John Marino cc: Joe Marcus Clarke , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, "svn-ports-head@freebsd.org" , Alexey Dokuchaev Subject: Re: svn commit: r383894 - in head/ports-mgmt/portlint: . src In-Reply-To: <55BF0D7E.3070407@marino.st> Message-ID: References: <201504130453.t3D4rQmX037343@svn.freebsd.org> <55BF0D7E.3070407@marino.st> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 07:19:48 -0000 On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, John Marino wrote: >> is wrong about emulators/wine-devel/files/patch-partial-reservation >> and especially emulators/wine-devel/files/patch-dlls_kernel32_Makefile.in >> or lang/gcc6-devel/patch-unwind-ia64.h ? > Please don't relax it. It is overy strict, so relaxing is the right thing to do. > People were reverting good "UTC" patches before. > Now they aren't, which is what that rule was trying to address. Yes, except there are now lots of false positives. That is a problem. It renders portlint less useful (to the point that I am considering to not use it any longer since it's become an uphill battle submitting patches and bug reports regarding the increasing number of false positives coming from portlint). > It's just a portlint warning, you don't have to worry about it > for existing patching. It's basically there for new patches. I am not planning to use `make makepatch`for new patches, either. My patches are perfectly fine and do not exhibit the problem you are concerned about, so why warn about them? In fact, `make makepatch` would remove key information in some cases. (Warning about patches that cary specific timezone information, not ones that lack "UTC" makes sense, of course.) Gerald