Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 08:32:23 +0000 From: Philip Reynolds <philip.reynolds@rfc-networks.ie> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How to apply private patches to port? Message-ID: <20030805083223.GE84015@rfc-networks.ie> In-Reply-To: <3F2F608D.9070806@ant.uni-bremen.de> References: <3F2E1EAA.5030200@ant.uni-bremen.de> <20030804170956.GA76322@mail.it.ca> <3F2F608D.9070806@ant.uni-bremen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Heinrich Rebehn <rebehn@ant.uni-bremen.de> 65 lines of wisdom included: > Hi Paul, > > In the meantime i found the "Porter's Handbook" and also had a > look into /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk, which contains a description > of all the make targets (fetch, extract, patch ..). I wish every > Makefile would have a 'help' target, which woukd list all the > available targets. But that's only wishful thinking.. > > As for 'widespread appeal' of my patch: I guess not. It's only a > private hack for imap-uw, which is very poorly configurable. At > first, i installed it directly from source (w/o port). But now i > wanted to install the package 'imp' from the ports which depends > on imap-uw and when i issued 'make' for imp, it began to pull in > imap-uw, because it was not 'installed'(via ports) and threatened > to overwrite my private imap-uw with an unpatched version. That's > why i had the idea of expanding the imap-uw port (and also > client-2002) with my own patch. I think FORCE_PKG_REGISTER and NO_DEPENDS can help you here. The other option is to compile up the uw-imap port (it really shouldn't take that long to do a basic compilation of a port when options are being hardcoded) and use the ports system naturally and keep a local copy of your ports. -- Philip Reynolds | RFC Networks Ltd. philip.reynolds@rfc-networks.ie | +353 (0)1 8832063 http://people.rfc-networks.ie/~phil | www.rfc-networks.ie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030805083223.GE84015>