Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 09:16:07 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: obrien@FreeBSD.org Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libstand Makefile bzlib.c.diff bzlib.h.diff bzlib_private.h.diff Message-ID: <428C2F27.3030607@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20050519045906.GA56261@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <200505170144.j4H1icUK066441@repoman.freebsd.org> <428965A5.2010406@FreeBSD.org> <20050519045906.GA56261@dragon.NUXI.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 06:31:49AM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > >>David E. O'Brien wrote: >> >>>obrien 2005-05-17 01:44:38 UTC >>> >>> FreeBSD src repository >>> >>> Modified files: >>> lib/libstand Makefile >>> Removed files: >>> lib/libstand bzlib.c.diff bzlib.h.diff >>> bzlib_private.h.diff >>> Log: >>> Temporarily disable support for bzip2'ed compressed filesystems, until a >>> maintainable why of handling them is created. >> >>Huh? What's wrong with the current way? I had submitted those patches to >>the author more than 2 years ago if my memory serves but unfortunately >>never heard from him back. There is simply no other way around this. > > > Patches do not belong in /usr/src - what's the point of an SCM then? > We either use a programmatic way of changing the source useing > sh/sed/awk, or We either take the file off the vendor branch. Pardon me, but can you please clarify who those "We" are? It is not immediately clear to me. I don't see any more or less significant differencies between using sh(1)/sed(1)/awk(1) and patch(1). All of those (and many other) tools are in the base tree and can be used more or less freely in the buildworld process. -Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?428C2F27.3030607>