Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 19:12:44 +0200 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@tu-dortmund.de> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org>, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, "Conrad E. Meyer" <cem@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r533459 - head/Mk/Scripts Message-ID: <90a01184-76e1-0982-950a-fdc466e1ec93@tu-dortmund.de> In-Reply-To: <20200506144056.rtx2oygw73qq7rsw@aching.in.mat.cc> References: <202004301448.03UEmMwc053196@repo.freebsd.org> <276aef88-4619-b4b7-ee92-44999b5c787d@FreeBSD.org> <20200506144056.rtx2oygw73qq7rsw@aching.in.mat.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 06.05.20 um 16:40 schrieb Mathieu Arnold: > If you run `make patch; make makepatch` the usage would have been broken > before and still is. I think the canonical idiom should rather be make clean extract do-patch makepatch to avoid casting momentary variables from the typical post-patch REINPLACE_CMD into a new patch. > If you run `make patch makepatch`, the usage does not change, if > patching fails, it does not go into makepatch target, and if patching is > ok, then makepatch runs and updates your patches. The safe recourse after one patch failed was to fix the patch and then "make clean patch" anyways.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?90a01184-76e1-0982-950a-fdc466e1ec93>