From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 2 17:41:13 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [69.147.83.53]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7262D106564A; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 17:41:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from opti.dougb.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3696714E833; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 17:41:11 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F510636.2020607@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 09:41:10 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120224 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Rees References: <4F4F5C76.8040908@FreeBSD.org> <20120302131903.GE55531@atarininja.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Wesley Shields , Matthew Seaman , freebsd-ports Subject: Re: On the usage of ${FILE} X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:41:13 -0000 On 03/02/2012 07:22, Chris Rees wrote: > On 2 Mar 2012 13:19, "Wesley Shields" wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 12:38:01PM +0000, Chris Rees wrote: >>> On 1 Mar 2012 11:26, "Matthew Seaman" wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> bsd.commands.mk has the following: >>>> >>>> FILE?= /usr/bin/file >>>> >>>> which is unfortunate, given that ${FILE} is used in several thousand >>>> ports, generally as a loop control variable for iterating through a > list >>>> of files. In fact, I can only find about 8 places where the file(1) >>>> program is intended. >>>> >>>> This obvious conflict of meanings seems pretty undesirable to me. Am > I >>>> missing something? Is there any reason to keep the status quo rather >>>> than changing the bsd.commands.mk variable to FILE_CMD and making the >>>> corresponding changes in those 8 places? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>> >>> I think that the loop control variables should be renamed to lower case. >> >> Except more of them in uppercase are bound to be added in the future, >> despite the best warnings not to do so. > > Can I say portlint? ;) Won't help, as we have a non-trivial number of developers who can't be bothered to learn the proper way to do things, or even to use a tool as simple as portlint. Matthew's proposal is the right way to go. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection