Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 16:41:54 -0700 From: Scott Blachowicz <scott@plum.statsci.com> To: FreeBSD-gnats@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/3922: nmh port updated to nmh-0.15 Message-ID: <m0wfZn0-0007RRC@plum.statsci.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 21 Jun 1997 15:10:01 -0700." <199706212210.PAA21992@hub.freebsd.org> References: <199706212210.PAA21992@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Oops...forgot this new file. BTW, I'm using CVS locally to maintain my copy of
this port. I generated my patch with 'cvs diff' instead of 'cvs rdiff'...the
latter apparently deals with new files OK - 'cvs diff' just says "no such tag"
or something like that. Hmmm...looks like 'cvs rdiff' includes the cvs module
name in the path where 'cvs diff' doesn't. Is there a preference by those
applying patches to the master ports sources as to where the filenames should
be relative to? (i.e. apply with 'patch -p1' or 'patch -p' or whatever? Should
I strip the "nmh-port/" prefix out of my patch here?)
cvs rdiff: Diffing nmh-port/pkg
Index: nmh-port/pkg/MESSAGE
diff -u /dev/null nmh-port/pkg/MESSAGE:1.1
--- /dev/null Sat Jun 21 16:13:14 1997
+++ nmh-port/pkg/MESSAGE Sat Jun 21 14:36:21 1997
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+Some files you might need to customize include the following:
+
+ ${PREFIX}/etc/nmh/mhn.defaults
+ ${PREFIX}/etc/nmh/mts.conf
+
Also, in general, would the above be better expressed as a pkg/INSTALL script
using ${PKG_PREFIX} & expanding it to give the real full paths to the files?
Or should I not bother with letting the installer know that some files might
need site-customizations?
--
Scott Blachowicz Ph: 206/283-8802x240 Mathsoft (Data Analysis Products Div)
1700 Westlake Ave N #500
scott@statsci.com Seattle, WA USA 98109
Scott.Blachowicz@seaslug.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m0wfZn0-0007RRC>