From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Jun 7 16:57:50 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mail.surf1.de (mail.surf1.de [194.25.165.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4857237B56D; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:57:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alex@big.endian.de) Received: from neutron.cichlids.com (p3E9C114D.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [62.156.17.77]) by mail.surf1.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA11205; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:57:48 +0200 Received: from cichlids.cichlids.com (cichlids.cichlids.com [192.168.0.10]) by neutron.cichlids.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06684AC30; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:58:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cichlids.cichlids.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 9409414A77; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:57:48 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:57:48 +0200 From: Alexander Langer To: Ade Lovett Cc: "David O'Brien" , ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: patches/ handling Message-ID: <20000608015748.A21901@cichlids.cichlids.com> Mail-Followup-To: Ade Lovett , David O'Brien , ports@FreeBSD.org References: <20000605184259.A21736@cichlids.cichlids.com> <20000606210209.B20037@dragon.nuxi.com> <20000607090533.D44242@FreeBSD.org> <20000607091405.A55268@dragon.nuxi.com> <20000607202517.D15229@cichlids.cichlids.com> <20000607134522.A353@FreeBSD.org> <20000607205859.A16247@cichlids.cichlids.com> <20000607170352.F353@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000607170352.F353@FreeBSD.org>; from ade@FreeBSD.org on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 05:03:52PM -0500 X-PGP-Fingerprint: 44 28 CA 4C 46 5B D3 A8 A8 E3 BA F3 4E 60 7D 7F X-PGP-at: finger alex@big.endian.de X-Verwirrung: Dieser Header dient der allgemeinen Verwirrung. Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Thus spake Ade Lovett (ade@FreeBSD.org): > > ********************************************************************** > > * THERE IS ALREADY THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A SEPERATE ARCH/OPSYS * > > * PATCHDIR. > Ok. Deep breath. Heh :) My capslock key happened to hang :) > (c) I'll send you some virtual beers, or should we ever meet > in person, the drinks will be on me. *rotfl* > Therefore, I'm suggesting that ALL support for patches. > be removed from bsd.port.mk -- by definition, that includes your > extensions. Hmm. The patches.arch is one of patches.arch, files.arch and pkg.arch. So either all or none must be removed. > port, and a few more waiting in the wings (I'm already starting to > have nightmares about making GNOME work on them :) -- we have lol > We have your suggestion, which is to extend the present scheme as > provided by bsd.port.mk. That's 1 vote. > That's the easy bit, which will take about a minute to do, should > we go for that option. However, in this case, the issue is deep > enough that it needs to be resolved before patches are made up. The question is not the patch but the _idea_ behind that patch, which matters. Well, to conclude - I do not strictly depend on my additional patches or on the removal. The thing is: I've discussed that with several folks on IRCNet now, and all of them agreed, that _generally_ the way should be that:... a) patch general then b) patch more and more specific ...and not _one_ strict patches/ dir which contains the same patches as another dir for another arch. So, if we forbid using patches. in the Porter's Handbook (only for rare cases, which noone of us could provide), I'm also satisfied, since we chose a solution and used that, and didn't use a half-cooked solution, if you know what I mean .-P Alex, who just happened to watch "Gladiator" at the cinema, and I'm very impressed. That movie is GREAT. -- This is a FreeBSD advocacy ~/.sig. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message