Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 17:22:30 -0600 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: FreeBSD-Stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Things I'd like to see in 2.2.6 Message-ID: <l03130301b113bdd32c46@[208.2.87.4]> In-Reply-To: <199802202235.PAA18313@harmony.village.org> References: Your message of "Fri, 20 Feb 1998 15:53:09 CST." <l03130300b113aab6ae9b@[208.2.87.4]> <l03130300b113aab6ae9b@[208.2.87.4]> <l03130303b11380fee173@[208.2.87.4]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 4:35 PM -0600 2/20/98, Warner Losh wrote: >I'd rather >upgrade to a new rev of xntpd rather than check them into the tree >(which is why I haven't checked them in yet...) Here's an interesting policy question. If some module requires a few patches to work properly in our OS/File structure, we typically build a "port" which consists of a Makefile and a set of patch files. Now, it the package author incorporates all of our patches, do we keep the port which now consists of simply a Makefile which primarily tells where to get the tarball? What of a "new" package which starts out without needing patches? Richard Wackerbarth To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03130301b113bdd32c46>