[MacPorts] #44777: p5-xml-twig @3.39 update to 3.48 (+add p5.18, p5.20, +formating)

[MacPorts]

#44777: p5-xml-twig @3.39 update to 3.48 (+add p5.18, p5.20, +formating)
-------------------------------+-------------------------------
  Reporter:  Joel.Brogniart@…  |      Owner:  frank.mcpherson@…
      Type:  update            |     Status:  new
  Priority:  Normal            |  Milestone:
 Component:  ports             |    Version:
Resolution:                    |   Keywords:  haspatch
      Port:  p5-xml-twig       |
-------------------------------+-------------------------------

Comment (by larryv@…):

 Replying to [comment:5 Joel.Brogniart@…]:
 > Is there a rule for Portfile file names in such a case. For one patch,
 > I use Portfile.orig and Portfile to calculate the diff. But with
 > chained patches do I use the same names again or could I use something
 > like Portfile.orig, Portfile.1, …, Portfile?

 Don’t worry too much about it; just make sure they apply. It’s trivial for
 the committer to use `patch FILENAME` instead of `patch -p`.

 Replying to [comment:6 Joel.Brogniart@…]:
 > One more question. Adding 5.18 and 5.20 to perl branches should be
 > done in the "cosmetic" patch or in the fonctional one?

 The whole point of the cosmetic patch is that it only changes the way the
 Portfile //looks//, not the way the Portfile //works//. Adding subports
 clearly changes how the Portfile works, so it is a functional change that
 should go in the functional patch.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/44777#comment:8>
MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for OS X