[31766] trunk/dports/audio/libao

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Dec 8, 2007, at 02:30, Landon Fuller wrote:

> On Dec 6, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> Don't change this now, but remember for next time that the first  
>> revision of a given port version is 0, not 1. In the future, just  
>> remove the revision line when upgrading a port's version to get  
>> the default revision of 0.
>
> The default is helpful (I use it), but what's -wrong- with being  
> explicit?

Nothing's wrong with specifying "revision 0", certainly. It's just  
not necessary. Mostly, I was pointing out that the revision should  
have been 0, not 1.

>>> -patchfiles       patch-AU-configure patch-AU- 
>>> src__plugins__macosx__ao_macosx.c
>>> +patchfiles       patch-configure
>>
>> Patchfiles should be named "patch-whatever.diff". See "port lint".
>
> I guess the same question here. Is there really something wrong  
> with not using the .diff extension? These patches match the  
> original naming guidelines, but they were just guidelines.

I've addressed this before, but my objection is that files should be  
named with an extension that identifies their content. Nevermind if  
you think filename extensions are a good or bad idea in general. On  
Mac OS X, they're a good idea, because you can associate files with  
programs based on the file's extension. If I want all diff files  
opened in TextWrangler, which I do, then I want to be able to inform  
the OS of that. If you don't name the diff files with a consistent  
extension (e.g. .diff), I cannot do this.

Furthermore, TextWrangler performs syntax highlighting based on the  
filename extension. If you call a file patch-AU- 
src__plugins__macosx__ao_macosx.c, TextWrangler thinks it is a C file  
and tries to syntax-highlight it as a C file. But it is not a C file.  
It is a difference of two C files. These are not equivalent.