Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 12:26:11 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: obrien@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: <3AD18032.1AB8799C@FreeBSD.org> References: <200104081548.f38FmTf80209@freefall.freebsd.org> <3AD17CBB.4598E8B@FreeBSD.org> <20010409021549.B11617@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien wrote: > 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. I see. I'm apologizing for disturbance. -Maxim 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?3AD18032.1AB8799C>