Portfile whitespace issues

[Paul Guyot]

> 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).

I concur.

Paul

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ceci_est_une_signature_=E9lectronique_PGP?=
Url : http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/attachments/20070315/32c9daf6/PGP.bin