Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:08:57 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Vanderhoek <ac199@hwcn.org> To: Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu> Cc: ache@nagual.pp.ru, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bsd.port.mk patch for review Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980116175437.204E-100000@localhost> In-Reply-To: <199801160620.WAA02177@bubble.didi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Satoshi Asami wrote:
> * -b works differently between this two versions.
> *
> * In case you want the same bsd.port.mk in both -current and -stable,
> * some trick must be used to detect patch version, maybe
> * 'patch --version' call or just simple -current detection,
> * or adding PATCHFLAGS to sys.mk, etc.
>
> We can have different bsd.port.mk for -current and 2.2, but I'd like
> to avoid that.
Even if the appropriate patch flag is merged into 2.2.5-stable,
you'll need to include a patch binary in _all_ future
222upgrade-9#.##.## files.
> Yes, we can certainly fix this in bsd.port.mk but I think this just
> illustrates that it's patch that really needs to be fixed. Can we
> tell POSIX to go fsck itself and make patch work the same on all
> versions of FreeBSD?
I've always suspected that GNU has the right idea with their
POSIX_ME_HARDER. I've not heard a single argument in favour of
not always making .orig files. I think that sometimes a history
of non-standardization has scared us into over-standardization.
There can't be more than one or two application which could ever
really depend on the non-creation of .orig files, but the same
non-creation could turn into a daily nuisance (or
yet-another-dumb-shell-alias).
<shrug>
--
tIM...HOEk
OPTIMIZATION: the process of using many one-letter variables names
hoping that the resultant code will run faster.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980116175437.204E-100000>