Polishing sysutils/istatd

[farrokhi]

Summary

Update sysutils/istatd to make portlint happy

[mat]

sysutils/istatd/Makefile

13 ↗

(On Diff #8280)

You also need to add LICENSE_FILE, if present in the source. (I know, it's not documented in the porter's handbook, the license section has been something I have to write, but...)

26 ↗

(On Diff #8280)

You don't need the += here, = will do, there's no previous value for it.

[farrokhi]

Hi,

There is actually no separate license file. I figured it out by looking
at comments of top of source files (e.g. main.cpp). Then, should I
remove the LICENSE line altogether?

[mat]

In D3512#71908, @farrokhi wrote:

Hi,

There is actually no separate license file. I figured it out by looking
at comments of top of source files (e.g. main.cpp). Then, should I
remove the LICENSE line altogether?

No, adding LICENSE is great. Like I said, if there is a file containing the license in the source, you also need to add LICENSE_FILE. In your case, the license is only present in the source file, so just add the LICENSE line.

[mat]

btw, you renamed the patch file, did you use svn move to do it ?

[mat]

Also, was the patch file modified ?
If the patch file is not modified, there is no need to rename it.

[farrokhi]

• cleanup SUB_FILES variable

[farrokhi]

portlint was complaining the patch was not made using "make makepatch". Yet, the patch content is still the same.

[mat]

In D3512#71930, @farrokhi wrote:

portlint was complaining the patch was not made using "make makepatch". Yet, the patch content is still the same.

Yes, I know, portlint stupidly complains about that without explaining enough. The rule is:

• if the patch is changed, then yes, use make makepatch to regenerate it, and if the file name change, use svn move to keep track of the change.
• if the patch is not changed, then do not rename it.

[farrokhi]

• revert patch. it was only a trivial file rename to make protlint happy.