From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 4 09:41:56 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B290A106564A for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 09:41:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanefbsd@gmail.com) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.228]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E5B08FC1A for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 09:41:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanefbsd@gmail.com) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so3820524rvf.43 for ; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:41:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=pk2JVuV6ktU8WnkEIWdxNqVWyUY+Js5of77s8X0M5xw=; b=BwAee46wpbfn4djEK4DD8YjqSq6vUQ1ldx8HP4QugzUif5xNBiYc4zXxLvqJVdtnWc A9RSBHpgq3iX6Z8Q6kOnWc9UkVYysR92FL4GF2ki8TXm6pfeQIup/yNDkapMIcaJ3kV9 PWBK8JzBhI5c6NcNiLKp+Z0VloXDCBRSPsm1Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=WS/dZPNtqwpodlgC3PvuYauZCxKJVF04MW+6cZipN0pE98ZatdvhEcB+rxibAwSr5k 85XNR+wmLgBvRD4VnBNovr4RiBm40ZuWCKtp4LXblsjBJWby1yMr4HKXeGKLyX5ROzIN gCfZEvyZZ1x5jJTGB5UyyE8SGhRBQavv2nfDc= Received: by 10.140.133.9 with SMTP id g9mr6838746rvd.137.1228383715996; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:41:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.158.13 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 01:41:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7d6fde3d0812040141i45957174w1cf1ff95c25e6bde@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 01:41:55 -0800 From: "Garrett Cooper" To: paul+usenet@w6yx.stanford.edu In-Reply-To: <7d6fde3d0812040140i44ec44bdw529b625674417949@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20081203131234.GD70240@hades.panopticon> <7d6fde3d0812040140i44ec44bdw529b625674417949@mail.gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal: mechanism for local patches X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:41:56 -0000 On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:13 AM, G. Paul Ziemba > 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. Just to clarify: s/be in charge of patches/be expected to support patching issues/ > 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 -Garrett