Patch naming policy (was: Re: [153574] trunk/dports/sysutils/skey)

Chris Jones jonesc at
Wed Oct 5 07:13:52 PDT 2016

> On 5 Oct 2016, at 2:56 pm, Rainer Müller <raimue at> wrote:
> On 2016-10-05 01:45, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> Patches should follow the patch-*.diff naming scheme, so this
>>> should be named patch-skeyprune-man8.diff or similar.
>> Popular opinion seems to be that we should relax that restriction.
>> I think it's reasonable if we change it to "patch-*.diff or
>> *.patch".
>> My primary gripe was with the way patches used to be named
>> "patch-foo" or "patch-foo.c" which caused editors to use incorrect
>> syntax highlighting. As long as we use a .diff or .patch extension,
>> to indicate to a syntax highlighter that this is a diff or patch
>> file, that should be fine.
> The initial patch-* policy was adopted from FreeBSD ports. The filename
> extension .diff was added later for this reason.
> If we want to change the patch naming policy, should we allow both
> *.diff and *.patch or would one file extension be better to avoid
> configuring editors twice?

My bet is any decent editor, at least those which support software development, would already support both.

> Rainer
> _______________________________________________
> macports-dev mailing list
> macports-dev at

More information about the macports-dev mailing list