Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 02:15:50 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/rsync/files ssh-patch-main.c ssh-patch-rsync.h Message-ID: <20010409021549.B11617@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <3AD17CBB.4598E8B@FreeBSD.org>; from sobomax@FreeBSD.org on Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 12:11:23PM %2B0300 References: <200104081548.f38FmTf80209@freefall.freebsd.org> <3AD17CBB.4598E8B@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 12:11:23PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > Modified files: > > net/rsync/files ssh-patch-rsync.h > > Added files: > > net/rsync/files ssh-patch-main.c > > Isn't patchfile should begin with "patch-" prefix? What is the reason here for > breaking good (and very reasonable, IMO) convention for patchnames? We only want to apply these patches if SSH is in the base system. So these are added to EXTRA_PATCHES if so. If these patches were named "patch-*" they would unconditionally be applied. See ports/net/rsync/Makefile for the details. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010409021549.B11617>