cvs commit: ports/devel/asmutils Makefile distinfo pkg-descr

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 03:16:00PM +0100, Kirill Ponomarew wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 02:08:38PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > > What's so filthy about mkdirs? I personally enjoy seeing them in the
> > > typescripts.
> > 
> > I agree there's a fair amount of controversy with muting mkdir's.  Back
> > when I started porting things, I've observed that most ports actually
> > muted those, so I followed that style.  Since there's no general rule
> > right, I felt like keeping my ports consistent WRT this.  Again, I must
> > say that I would be rather pleased if we'd finally come to an agreement,
> > with appropriate sentence in Porter Handbook.
> 
> You wanna get an entry in PH whether to mute or not MKDIR's ?  It
> just smells like another-useless-policy-request.  It's just a matter
> of taste if you want to hide dirs creation or not.

Not a request, but rather suggestion or some soft guide-line, and not
only about MKDIR, but also CHOWN/CHMOD and other "non-purely-install"
things.  Since we're sweep thru patch: target silently, REINPLACE_CMD's
should be muted as well (and in fact, that makes the trush right now).

Something similar (that is, style nits) would be useful for pkg-descr,
e.g. text formatting, number of spaces after dots, list format (i.e.,
four-space padded, allowed chars are `*', `-', `o'), things like that.
Right now, our ports collection, despite its pretty good "quantity and
quality" state is rather indifferent to how it look to an end-user.
Consistent descriptions, for instance, make us look better and "more
professional", should I say.  Of course this is a last thing we should
currently worry about (first, make OPTIONS framework so it pleases
everyone ;-), but since we have man style(9) for src, we should have
something for ports too.  portlint(1) is a huge benefit, but I often
feel we can do better.

I might sound excessively grumpy, but it's just my $.02 after all.

./danfe