Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 10:04:43 -0700 From: Scott Blachowicz <scott@statsci.com> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/3922: nmh port updated to nmh-0.15 Message-ID: <199707101704.KAA14586@knife.statsci.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 23 Jun 1997 22:47:07 -0700." <199706240547.WAA04632@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> References: <199706240547.WAA04632@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) wrote:
> * name in the path where 'cvs diff' doesn't. Is there a preference by those
> * applying patches to the master ports sources as to where the filenames should
> * be relative to? (i.e. apply with 'patch -p1' or 'patch -p' or whatever? Should
> * I strip the "nmh-port/" prefix out of my patch here?)
>
> I find it easier to have it without the pathname (that way you don't
> even need a "-p") but if that's the way cvs wants to generate diffs,
> that's no big deal. (If someone screws up and edits the wrong line,
> that would be much more hassle. ;)
>
> * Also, in general, would the above be better expressed as a pkg/INSTALL script
> * using ${PKG_PREFIX} & expanding it to give the real full paths to the files?
> * Or should I not bother with letting the installer know that some files might
> * need site-customizations?
>
> You certainly should. I usually just put "/usr/local" there, if the
> user knows enough to install the port elsewhere, I'm sure he is smart
> enough to figure out where the setup file moved. :)
Upon rereading (and not knowing what normal lag time is for getting port
patches committed), I'm not sure if you're waiting for me to do something
on this one? I'm not sure (at this point) if you're waiting for me to
resubmit patches or not. Also, I believe the nmh author is probably going
to come out with his next version pretty soon - should I (generally) just
keep submitting patches assuming that they'll all get committed
eventually? Or should I wait on new patches until the earlier one(s) get
applied, in case you need to adjust my submitted patches?
Just to summarize...there was a patch to the nmh port submitted with the
original ports/3922 report, then a followup to provide a missing patch (to
create a new file - pkg/MESSAGE).
Scott Blachowicz Ph: 206/283-8802x240 Mathsoft (Data Analysis Products Div)
1700 Westlake Ave N #500
scott@statsci.com Seattle, WA USA 98109
Scott.Blachowicz@seaslug.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707101704.KAA14586>