Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 18:35:19 -0600 From: Ted Spradley <tsprad@set.spradley.tmi.net> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, FreeBSD-Stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Things I'd like to see in 2.2.6 Message-ID: <199802210035.SAA24383@set.spradley.tmi.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 20 Feb 1998 17:22:30 CST." <l03130301b113bdd32c46@[208.2.87.4]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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? I've wondered about this policy, too. In my experience, most of the software I use doesn't require "patches", but rather requires configuration choices (do you want this optional feature? do you want the binary in /usr/local/sbin or in /usr/local/libexec?). So, is there a policy? 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?199802210035.SAA24383>