Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

net-mgmt/netdata: General improvements
ClosedPublic

Authored by driesm on Dec 20 2021, 5:52 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Feb 6 2024, 10:48 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Jan 27 2024, 3:53 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Jan 15 2024, 12:51 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 29 2023, 5:41 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 20 2023, 3:29 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Nov 29 2023, 6:30 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Nov 29 2023, 6:25 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Nov 29 2023, 6:25 PM
Subscribers

Details

Summary
net-mgmt/netdata: General improvements

- Simplify post-patch logic
- Pet portclippy and portfmt

 Approved by:		tbd (mentor)
 Differential Revision:	https://reviews.freebsd.org/D33590
Test Plan

Testport looks good, I tested both CLOUD on and off and verified patch is only applied when CLOUD is off. post-patch is always applied like it should.

Diff Detail

Repository
R11 FreeBSD ports repository
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

driesm added reviewers: 0mp, philip, diizzy.
net-mgmt/netdata/Makefile
33

No, read 5.4.3 in Porters Handbook

62

This a matter of preference, it uses more than one tab simple to line up with OPTIONS_

86–87

Since we're only using it once it doesn't make much sense to create a variable

Thanks for the review Daniel!

net-mgmt/netdata/Makefile
33

Hmm, I just did but I don't see what you are referring to within that section?

62

Agreed, this is just portfmt output, can be left as is, no harm done.

86–87

Twice :), once at DISTFILES and once at post-patch-CLOUD-off.

net-mgmt/netdata/Makefile
33

If the distribution file comes from a specific commit or tag on GitHub for which there is no officially released file - There is one (release tarball/archive)

86–87

Right, I'm personally not too fond of the idea of referencing variables before they're defined in ports Makefile(s) but that's a personal preference. I would personally try to parse ALLFILES (or similar) instead but it's not a hard no from my side.

If those are all clean-ups, then there is no need to bump PORTREVISION.

In D33590#760215, @0mp wrote:

If those are all clean-ups, then there is no need to bump PORTREVISION.

No functional change intended. :)

This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state Needs Review.Jan 30 2022, 8:02 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.