ports/81405: [update] sysutils/adtool to 1.3

[Joseph Scott]

The following reply was made to PR ports/81405; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Joseph Scott <joseph at randomnetworks.com>
To: Andrej Zverev <az at inec.ru>
Cc: bug-followup at FreeBSD.org,
 Sergey Matveychuk <sem at FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: ports/81405: [update] sysutils/adtool to 1.3
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 08:27:06 -0700

 On May 25, 2005, at 12:40 AM, Andrej Zverev wrote:
 
 > On Tuesday 24 May 2005 19:30, Joseph Scott wrote:
 >
 >> The following reply was made to PR ports/81405; it has been noted  
 >> by GNATS.
 >>
 >> From: Joseph Scott <joseph at randomnetworks.com>
 >> To: Sergey Matveychuk <sem at FreeBSD.org>
 >> Cc: bug-followup at FreeBSD.org
 >> Subject: Re: ports/81405: [update] sysutils/adtool to 1.3
 >> Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:23:05 -0700
 >>
 >>  On May 24, 2005, at 7:58 AM, Sergey Matveychuk wrote:
 >>
 >>> Dear maintainer!
 >>>
 >>> Take the PR into account please!
 >>>
 >>
 >>  It would be helpful if you simply CC'd me on the original PR, that
 >>  way I'd know it was there.
 >>
 > Sorry Joseph, it was my fault, what i not Cc to you.
 >
 >>
 >>  I don't approve of this patch.  The white space changes are
 >>  completely unnecessary, I'm not sure that changing HAS_CONFIGURE to
 >>  GNU_CONFIGURE is correct, and you also removed the prefix setting  
 >> for
 >>  the build (does this tie into GNU_CONFIGURE?).
 >>
 >>  I appreciate your effort here and would approve the update if the
 >>  white space changes weren't included and you explained why you want
 >>  to make the other changes (assuming they turn out to be correct)
 >>  outside of simply updating the port.
 >>
 >>
 > Yes, i try explain HAS_CONFIGURE exist for programs which have  
 > configure, but
 > configure here it maked by autotools, so if we look into bsd.port.mk
 > GNU_CONFIGURE is set, "CC=${CC} CCFLAGS=${CFLAGS}
 > PREFIX=${PREFIX} INSTALLPRIVLIB=${PREFIX}/lib
 > INSTALLARCHLIB=${PREFIX}/lib"
 >
 > With GNU_CONFIGURE we respect more flags as you can see, i think  
 > it's better.
 > Whitespace cleanup it's too much, i agree with you, but with this  
 > cleanups
 > port more aesthetic good-looking.
 
 I haven't tested the patch, but if it builds fine for you then I'm  
 okay with it.  I'm in favor of the whitespace changes, the Makefile  
 looks fine when I look at it in vim.  But I'm not willing to put much  
 energy into fighting against it either, so go ahead with it if you  
 want, although I'd prefer to not have the white space changes.
 
 
 
 --
 Joseph Scott
 URL: http://joseph.randomnetworks.com/
 Email: joseph at randomnetworks.com