From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 30 22:36:11 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32C8116A416 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:36:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6EB743D5F for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:36:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.13.6/8.13.8) id k9UMa6Ou051423; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:36:06 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dan) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:36:06 -0600 From: Dan Nelson To: Curtis Jewell Message-ID: <20061030223606.GA40203@dan.emsphone.com> References: <20061028041144.GE69913@it.ca> <20061028131728.C88671@lap.curtisjewell.boldlygoingnowhere.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061028131728.C88671@lap.curtisjewell.boldlygoingnowhere.org> X-OS: FreeBSD 6.2-PRERELEASE X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Versions distributed only as diffs? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:36:11 -0000 In the last episode (Oct 28), Curtis Jewell said: > On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Paul Chvostek wrote: > >I'm looking at porting a debian package whose source appears to be > >distributed as an older version plus a couple of diffs to bring the > >old source to the current stable version. > > > >The two diffs, uncompressed, are about 101KB. > > > >Should I add slightly-modified versions of these diffs as patches in > >the port's files directory, making a 104KB port? That seems awfully > >heavy. Or should I make distfiles of the original diffs, and write > >some Makefile magic in post-patch to apply them to the older source > >distfile? Is there a precedent for this? > > editors/vim does the second with about 90 small patches. So yes, there's > precedent. Why not just treat them as plain old patches and list them in PATCHFILES? misc/mmv and net/sniffit do this (with a single patch, but the same idea applies). -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com