Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 19:17:41 +0100 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: best way to maintain local ports tree changes Message-ID: <5A01F8C5.7070107@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <3bf0c6dc-51b9-9799-6608-53db1270bf4a@FreeBSD.org> References: <5A01D736.40204@quip.cz> <3bf0c6dc-51b9-9799-6608-53db1270bf4a@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mathieu Arnold wrote on 11/07/2017 18:03:
> Le 07/11/2017 à 16:54, Miroslav Lachman a écrit :
>> What is the best way to maintain local ports tree changes?
>>
>> I am building packages in poudriere, 4 different sets for 2 archs (8
>> sets in total).
>>
>> I have some local ports and some changes to official ports. Now we are
>> planing to do some small changes in ports/Mk too.
>
> I would advise against patching the framework directly, most things are
> configurable, what problems do you have with ports/Mk ?
For example I would like to rip of some lines from Mk/Uses/php.mk
Some time ago when etc/php/extensions.ini was split in to many pieces
the following messages was introduced for each and every PHP extension
installed / upgraded
## {{{ message
****************************************************************************
Message from php56-filter-5.6.32:
****************************************************************************
The following line has been added to your
/usr/local/etc/php/ext-20-filter.ini
configuration file to automatically load the installed extension:
extension=filter.so
## }}} message
It is really annoying to have terminal scrolled 300 lines just to show
me this.
I understand it was useful for somebody for transition period but now...?
> Are you aware of the Mk/bsd.local.mk file that is there to allow you to
> not change the other files ?
I am not aware of Mk/bsd.local.mk but I think it will not allow me to
modify behaviour of Mk/Uses/php.mk
> As for the ports, you can also add a Makefile.local that will be parsed
> after the main Makefile, it may help you depending on what you change in
> existing ports.
I have small patches for some ports like ports-mgmt/pkg (I submitted it
few years ago without any attention).
We need to keep sysutils/tmux on version 2.3 because newer versions are
buggy (tmux author said it is feature and refuse to restore old
behaviour - I also posted in FreeBSD mailing lists about this issue)
We are patching benchmarks/sysbench to use vim-lite as dependency
instead of full Vim:
BUILD_DEPENDS= xxd:editors/vim-lite
Those are just examples why I would like to have some small patches
applied to ports tree after sync with official ports tree but do not
want to use local category for each of this modification.
I found ports-mgmt/portshaker - is it right tool for my use case?
Miroslav Lachman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5A01F8C5.7070107>