From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Mar 31 13:28:51 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from blues.jpj.net (blues.jpj.net [204.97.17.146]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C3037B719 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 13:28:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from trevor@jpj.net) Received: from localhost (trevor@localhost) by blues.jpj.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2VLSle02536; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 16:28:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 16:28:47 -0500 (EST) From: Trevor Johnson To: Will Andrews Cc: FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: Error: your port uses an old layout. In-Reply-To: <20010331153450.J15392@casimir.physics.purdue.edu> Message-ID: <20010331161509.R189-100000@blues.jpj.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > The problem with yours is that it is even more intense in metadata ops > on the filesystem than mine is. And I'm pretty dang sure that mine will > work. :-) Suppose the user got a copy of the ports tree in November, and in a particular (hypothetical) port there was a files/patch-aa. Also suppose that in December, the maintainer of the port did a "cvs rm" on that patch. Around 11 January, all Attic files were removed from the ports collection. Today, the user updates his ports tree. Because there is no Attic file for it, files/patch-aa remains. The user follows Will's suggestion and removes all pkg/ and patches/ directories, along with their contents. The user tries to build the hypothetical port. Either files/patch-aa applies, or "make patch" fails. If it applies, the ported command doesn't behave the way the maintainer of the port wanted it to. If "make patch" fails, the user may contact the maintainer about the problem, or may just give up. -- Trevor Johnson http://jpj.net/~trevor/gpgkey.txt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message