Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 01:40:08 -0800 From: "Garrett Cooper" <yanefbsd@gmail.com> To: paul+usenet@w6yx.stanford.edu Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal: mechanism for local patches Message-ID: <7d6fde3d0812040140i44ec44bdw529b625674417949@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <gh83eo$303t$1@hairball.ziemba.us> References: <20081203131234.GD70240@hades.panopticon> <gh83eo$303t$1@hairball.ziemba.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:13 AM, G. Paul Ziemba <pz-freebsd-ports@ziemba.us> wrote: > amdmi3@amdmi3.ru (Dmitry Marakasov) writes: >>> 1. Good that it's at the end of the do-patch target - that way local >>> patches can happen after the "official" patches > >>Not sure if it's good actually. > >>On the one hand, you usually have patches against vanilla sources, and >>just want to drop them to some dir and have them applied. >>Also, there's USE_DOS2UNIX that comes before any actual patching, so for >>ports that use USE_DOS2UNIX you'll have to adapt patches by hand. > >>On the other hand, this may cause conflicts with patches from ports, > > If the local patches were applied before the official ports patches, > the official patches could fail, or they could undo some of the > modifications made by local patches. I think it would be an incorrect > result. > > >From the point of view of the local patches, there is potential for > variation in the upstream files regardless of whether they are > modified by official ports patches, so doing local patching first > doesn't let you avoid tweaking local patches from time to time. > >>Updated version here: >>http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/local-patchdir.patch > > It looks good to me. Thanks! FreeBSD maintained patches can change at any instant a developer makes a commit to the ports tree, so doing either a vanilla patch or a patch after a patch will require some level of rework, regardless. One thing though -- I think that if this item does get supported it should be noted that while the FreeBSD project supports the patching functionality, they shouldn't be in charge of the patches. I know most users / admins would understand this point clearly, but it needs to be made apparent in the port distfiles, or using some method, that an individual is using self-patched and maintained sources. Gentoo Linux uses the concept of portage overlays to deal with this issue, but I'm not sure if that's the best method to approach this problem with, as our ports system isn't yet adapted to this level of thinking, and since we don't have a means of masking port versions today (mind you -- I'm not really suggesting that this should be done -- version masking and arch masking is a real maintenance nightmare for the support groups and we have enough fun dealing with our ports tree :)..). My 2 cents, -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7d6fde3d0812040140i44ec44bdw529b625674417949>