From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Feb 20 16:13:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA05565 for freebsd-stable-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 16:13:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from set.spradley.tmi.net (set.spradley.tmi.net [207.170.107.99]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA05322 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 16:12:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tsprad@set.spradley.tmi.net) Received: from set.spradley.tmi.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by set.spradley.tmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA24383; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 18:35:20 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from tsprad@set.spradley.tmi.net) Message-Id: <199802210035.SAA24383@set.spradley.tmi.net> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: Richard Wackerbarth cc: Warner Losh , FreeBSD-Stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Things I'd like to see in 2.2.6 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 20 Feb 1998 17:22:30 CST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 18:35:19 -0600 From: Ted Spradley Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > Here's an interesting policy question. > If some module requires a few patches to work properly in our > OS/File structure, we typically build a "port" which consists of > a Makefile and a set of patch files. > > Now, it the package author incorporates all of our patches, do we > keep the port which now consists of simply a Makefile which > primarily tells where to get the tarball? > > What of a "new" package which starts out without needing patches? I've wondered about this policy, too. In my experience, most of the software I use doesn't require "patches", but rather requires configuration choices (do you want this optional feature? do you want the binary in /usr/local/sbin or in /usr/local/libexec?). So, is there a policy? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message