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

[Juan Manuel Palacios]

On Oct 21, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

> On Oct 21, 2007, at 13:38, N_Ox wrote:
>
>> Le 21 oct. 07 à 20:15, source_changes at macosforge.org a écrit :
>>
>>> Revision 30149 Author rhwood at macports.org Date 2007-10-21  
>>> 11:15:29 -0700 (Sun, 21 Oct 2007) Log MessageAdd a patch to  
>>> xml2po that, against all reason, seems to work. Bump the revision  
>>> number so everyone gets it.
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.


	I support advertising this format as the "recommended" one for  
patchfiles, absolutely! (and not "<something>.patch" since the "patch- 
<something>.diff" format already conveys both the "patch" and "diff"  
messages -- two birds with one stone, as we say here ;-). But why do  
I say "recommended"? 'Cause obviously Portfile writers are gonna come  
asking why we demand something in our guide and yet other naming  
styles exist in our ports tree... 'cause it just aint true that we're  
gonna rename all patchfiles that don't follow the convention and  
adapt the corresponding Portfiles to work with the new names.

	So lets make this format our "official advice", but I would refrain  
from *demanding* it just yet.

	And with respect to patchfile reach, I still favor and support the  
"one patchfile per fix" convention, meaning a single patchfile can  
touch as many source files as it takes to fix a particular problem if  
need be, no need to make separate patchfiles for each source file if  
it's the same problem. Different fixes of course *must* go in  
different patchfiles. Based on this, the <something> part in the  
"patch-<something>.diff" format can either stand for the name of the  
file we're patching (including its extension), if we're patching a  
single file (e.g. patch-main.c.diff), or a string hinting the problem  
we're fixing with the patch (e.g. patch-darwin_defines.diff), in case  
we touch multiple files. These guidelines immediately lead to a clash  
in case a single file needs fixes for multiple, logically different  
problems, however; in this case I'd say it's OK to have "patch- 
problem1.diff" and "patch-problem2.diff" patchfiles for this sole  
hypothetically problematic source file.

	Regards,...


-jmpp