Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 01:18:55 +0000 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal: mechanism for local patches Message-ID: <20081204011855.5132f7d8@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <87ef649b0812021903x7e2d3ee9h90dde2dcffe4e2be@mail.gmail.com> References: <gh1l3n$22rv$1@hairball.ziemba.us> <20081202180743.GB70240@hades.panopticon> <20081203020857.523645bc@gumby.homeunix.com> <87ef649b0812021903x7e2d3ee9h90dde2dcffe4e2be@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 22:03:08 -0500 "Jim Trigg" <jtrigg@spamcop.net> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:08 PM, RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> wrote: > > directory is deleted. I wonder why, if an "update" can decompress > > over the top of a port, an "extract" need to delete it first. I > > can't think of any good reason offhand. > > > > I would presume that it does that to get rid of "standard" patch files > that are no longer part of the port... Yes, that is a good reason, I should have thought that through a bit. I still think that it's more aggressive than it needs be. I think it could probably just delete Makefile (in case the port is moved) plus any files in files/ that don't end in .local. That way you could still have local patchfiles, and anything else would be untouched including README.html and makefile.local
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081204011855.5132f7d8>