Portfile whitespace issues

[Daniel J. Luke]

On Mar 15, 2007, at 3:12 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> There were not that many participants. I tried to put up a fight in  
> favor of keeping hard tabs, but I was the only one. :-) Upon  
> further consideration, I don't think I really care that much one  
> way or another, and I do recognize that a whole class of spacing  
> issues we currently have in Portfiles would not occur if we did not  
> use tabs. So, let's take 'em out!

The old rule was that Porfiles should be internally consistent.

That was it - and I don't think it's so bad to let portfile authors  
handle things however they want as long as the result isn't totally  
unreadable for everything else.

So, my vote would be for continuing the old policy and not getting  
all whitespace-crazy on everything (it makes sense to have one  
whitespace convention for base/ code, though).

--
Daniel J. Luke
+========================================================+
| *---------------- dluke at geeklair.net ----------------* |
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |
+========================================================+
|   Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily   |
|          reflect the opinions of my employer.          |
+========================================================+


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/attachments/20070315/aea794bb/PGP.bin