Relax port lint rule for patchfile naming

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Mar 18, 2018, at 04:04, Jan Stary wrote:

> While we're here:
> 
>>>> How will you distinguish patchfiles from others
> 
>> The lint check in question doesn't look at the contents of files/, it
>> looks at the patchfiles option.
> 
> what e.g. OpenBSD does is it has a patches/ subdirectory in the port dir.
> Anything in there is a patch to be applied. No extra keyword/option for it.
> (files/ is extra files to be added to WRKSRC; no keyword for it).
> 
> I believe it is simpler to what MP has now:
> patchfiles need to be declared such with 'patchfiles',
> and extra files need to be created _in_ the Portfile
> (as e.g. textproc/mandoc does for configure.local).

I don't see any reason to change how MacPorts base handles patchfiles and other extra files. What we have now is very flexible and works fine.

Let's keep this thread on the topic of port lint rules for patchfile names.