From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 24 08:41:40 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE4C016A4CE for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 08:41:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.server.rpi.edu (smtp2.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF5943D2F for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 08:41:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp2.server.rpi.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4OFfdIX032326; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:41:39 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040524152639.GA12607@pc5.i.0x5.de> References: <20040524152639.GA12607@pc5.i.0x5.de> Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 11:41:38 -0400 To: Nicolas Rachinsky From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Third "RFC" on on pkg-data ideas for ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 15:41:40 -0000 At 5:26 PM +0200 5/24/04, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: >* Garance A Drosihn [2004-05-24 00:07 -0400]: >> The third proposal is basically: >> a) move most "standard" files into a new pkg-data >> file, as described in previous proposals, except >> for pkg-descr and "patch" files. >> b) create a new directory at the root directory of >> the ports collection. That directory would be >> called "Patches", and inside would be a directory >> for each category. Inside each Patches/category >> directory would be a single-file for each port >> in that category, where that single-file would >> have all the "ports-collection patches" for the >> matching port. > >I hoep I haven't missed something obvious, but what about local >patches and Makefile.local? Will they continue to work? Makefile.local should work as well as it currently does. I do agree that whatever is done, any major changes will have to continue to support local patches. We haven't written any of the patch-processing code yet so I can't say this is implemented, but it is an item on our checklist of things we must do. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu