Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 05:22:10 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>, "ports@FreeBSD.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: EXTRA_PATCHES considered harmful? Message-ID: <59C6DE92.5050303@grosbein.net> In-Reply-To: <aab5d142-4e07-a4b2-1b92-bbc0778509a5@freebsd.org> References: <aab5d142-4e07-a4b2-1b92-bbc0778509a5@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
24.09.2017 4:39, Julian Elischer wrote:
> currently if you set EXTRA_PATCHES and the port you are making decides to build a second port as a dependency, EXTRA_PATCHES is passed to the second port which them obiously fails to patch it.
>
> e.g. cd /usr/ports/emulators/open-vm-tools-nox11; Make EXTRA_PATCHES=/foo/bar/patch1
>
> will fail when it tries to apply the patch files to each dependency.
>
> AM I doing something wrong here?
Obviously, one should not use EXTRA_PATCHES in command line,
rather define an option for distinct port's Makefile and
turn option on/off in command line instead.
For example, converters/iconv's Makefile has:
OPTIONS_DEFINE= CCSUTIL
CCSUTIL_EXTRA_PATCHES_OFF= ${FILESDIR}/extra-patch-ccs_Makefile
And you can run "make WITH_CCSUTIL=yes"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?59C6DE92.5050303>