From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Sep 12 19:42:37 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16B7A16A420
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:42:37 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from weak.local (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D3EC13C45D;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:42:36 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org)
Message-ID: <46E8412A.10803@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:42:34 +0200
From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com>
References: <E415058D-8E16-4634-B6E4-3166988F156B@dragffy.com>	<46E72690.8020707@FreeBSD.org>	<20070912022352.77090199@epia-2.farid-hajji.net>
	<20070912184253.6dbbe24f@gumby.homeunix.com.>
In-Reply-To: <20070912184253.6dbbe24f@gumby.homeunix.com.>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Hunks failed, is this bad?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:42:37 -0000

RW wrote:
> 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. 

Wow, that is so wrong :O

Kris