On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, Marc Espie wrote:
Well, it's kind of funny that both of you (Nikolay and Antoine) made
typos in your emails, between Makefilte and concure...
Why is it funny? Because English is not my first language... well not
my fault, I'm just trying to make myself understood.
There
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 12:08:49PM +0100, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, Nikolay Sturm wrote:
> >I don't only do that, I actually think it does have a benefit. From my
> >experience it is much easier reviewing a port that follows some
> >pre-defined structure than having none whatso
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, Nikolay Sturm wrote:
I don't only do that, I actually think it does have a benefit. From my
experience it is much easier reviewing a port that follows some
pre-defined structure than having none whatsoever. We have KNF in src
I totally concure. It makes reviewing way easier
* Brad [2008-01-13]:
> I feel the same way. bsd.port.mk(5) and examples in the tree are more
> than good enough. Some people take the template way too seriously, to
> the point of even putting variables in the same order as the template
> and other silliness.
I don't only do that, I actually think
On Saturday 12 January 2008 08:38:39 Marc Espie wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 09:16:19AM -0300, Andrés wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 2008 12:57 AM, Brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Your patch was wrong because Makefile.template should not list LDFLAGS
> > > as it currently does. The patch below is
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 09:16:19AM -0300, Andrés wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2008 12:57 AM, Brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Your patch was wrong because Makefile.template should not list LDFLAGS
> > as it currently does. The patch below is correct.
>
> Just to know if we can help to make Makefile.temp
On Jan 12, 2008 12:57 AM, Brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your patch was wrong because Makefile.template should not list LDFLAGS
> as it currently does. The patch below is correct.
Just to know if we can help to make Makefile.template match reality:
is there more stuff that shouldn't go there?
On Friday 11 January 2008 20:43:09 Mikko Tolmunen wrote:
> > Makefile.template is wrong and this is wrong as well.
> well in that case let's patch the Makefile.template then, and if you ever get
> couple of minutes of free time to waste please explain what was wrong with
> the patch.
Your patch
> Makefile.template is wrong and this is wrong as well.
well in that case let's patch the Makefile.template then, and if you ever get
couple of minutes of free time to waste please explain what was wrong with
the patch.
Index: Makefile.template
==
On Friday 11 January 2008 19:36:30 Mikko Tolmunen wrote:
> use of LDFLAGS is mentioned in Makefile.template
Makefile.template is wrong and this is wrong as well.
> Index: mk/bsd.port.mk
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/ports/infrastructure/mk/
use of LDFLAGS is mentioned in Makefile.template
Index: mk/bsd.port.mk
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk,v
retrieving revision 1.922
diff -u -r1.922 bsd.port.mk
--- mk/bsd.port.mk 4 Jan 2008 18:38:51 -
11 matches
Mail list logo
