Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:43:55 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: patches/ handling Message-ID: <20000607114355.D82541@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20000607202253.C15229@cichlids.cichlids.com>; from alex@big.endian.de on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 08:22:53PM %2B0200 References: <20000605184259.A21736@cichlids.cichlids.com> <20000606210209.B20037@dragon.nuxi.com> <20000607095546.B979@cichlids.cichlids.com> <20000607092808.B55616@dragon.nuxi.com> <20000607202253.C15229@cichlids.cichlids.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 08:22:53PM +0200, Alexander Langer wrote: > _Additionally_: > IMO, patches are more easy to maintain if they are separated into > arch and _not_ #ifdef'd. It's _much_ cleaner and makes the work for > porters more easy. I completely dissagree. Are you going to send both the alpha/patch-ag and ia64/patch-ag to the software's author and tell him you're submitting a set of patches that will fix his software for two arches, but since you aren't competent enough to do the patch right he has to pick which arch he wasn't to build properly on out of the box?? -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000607114355.D82541>