[30149] trunk/dports/gnome/gnome-doc-utils

[Anders F Björklund]

Ryan Schmidt wrote:

>> Shouldn't the patch be renamed "patch-xml2po_xml2po.py"?
>> http://geeklair.net/new_macports_guide/#development.patches.source
>
> It should be called "patch-xml2po_xml2po.py.diff". The guide should be  
> updated to recommend this style.
>
> I object to naming patchfiles with the original file's extension. The  
> file "patch-xml2po_xml2po.py" is *NOT* a Python file! It is a  
> difference of two Python files. Editors attempting to perform source  
> code highlighting based on the file extension will do so incorrectly  
> for files which are in fact diffs. Call the file what it is. Put  
> ".diff" at the end.

Having one such patch file for each affected source file is the BSD  
ports convention:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/slow- 
patch.html

The MacPorts ones named as patch-whatever.diff can affect more than one  
source file.

> The old guide was contradictory, as it recommended one way in one  
> place and the other way in another place. Let's please standardize on  
> the format "patch-FOO.diff". According to "find . -name 'patch-*.diff'  
> | wc -l" we already have hundreds of patchfiles following this  
> convention.

Last thing I heard, both styles of patches were allowed in the MacPorts  
Portfiles.

Outside of ports, it's common to have files named as foo-1.0-bar.patch,  
which is
a patch for fixing "bar" in version 1.0 of "foo" - usually applied as  
patch -p1.

--anders