Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:42:53 +0100 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Hunks failed, is this bad? Message-ID: <20070912184253.6dbbe24f@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <20070912022352.77090199@epia-2.farid-hajji.net> References: <E415058D-8E16-4634-B6E4-3166988F156B@dragffy.com> <46E72690.8020707@FreeBSD.org> <20070912022352.77090199@epia-2.farid-hajji.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:23:52 +0200 cpghost <cpghost@cordula.ws> wrote: > IIRC, it's portmanager that patches bsd.port.mk on the fly > (and backs the change out when it is done). Or it did so a > while ago; I don't know if it still does today. > > Try to update portmanager, or use something else like portmaster > or portupgrade, if updating portmanager didn't work. > Portmanger acquired this feature just before Schultz went off in a huff. What it does is is patch bsd.port.mk so that it calls back into portmanager allowing it to modify dependencies. I haven't checked the code, but since I've not seen any evidence of portmanager trying to modify dependencies in the last few years, I suspect that the support for the callback is just a stub. If that's true then using an unpatched file is harmless.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070912184253.6dbbe24f>