Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:06:36 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>, Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, "svn-ports-head@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r383894 - in head/ports-mgmt/portlint: . src Message-ID: <20150803110636.GA66558@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <55BF17C9.10600@marino.st> References: <201504130453.t3D4rQmX037343@svn.freebsd.org> <alpine.LSU.2.20.1508022310110.10946@tuna.site> <55BF0D7E.3070407@marino.st> <alpine.LSU.2.20.1508030113510.10946@tuna.site> <55BF17C9.10600@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 09:27:05AM +0200, John Marino wrote: > On 8/3/2015 9:19 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > 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 ? These are multi-file, "cumulative" patches; portlint(1) suggesting that they should be regenerated with "make makepatch" is a bug, but read on... > >> Please don't relax it. > > > > It is overy strict, so relaxing is the right thing to do. > > No, it's not. > We're trying to avoid patch churn. > > > 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). The first problem here is that you're both right. Second problem is that portlint(1) is often perceived as a call to action, (ir)regardless of the actual importance, merit, and fairness of found warnings/errors. Often I ask about necessity of some particular change, and people tell, "portlint complained, so I shut it up" even though it was not really warranted and made things if not worse definitely not better either. > > 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.) Since it's easy to detect cumulative patch (either created by hand or with one of John's tools for example) and tell it apart from patch-per- file case, this check can be limited to the latter only? ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150803110636.GA66558>