From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Mar 25 22:05:41 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id WAA13520 for ports-outgoing; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 22:05:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from nexis.net (nexis.net [205.233.74.80]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA13515 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 22:05:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from james@localhost) by nexis.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA01542; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 01:05:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 01:05:31 -0500 (EST) From: James FitzGibbon To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Style for patching / new bsd.port.mk Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Just a couple of questions: - Using the new bsd.port.mk, I was able to make RUN_DEPENDS accept a non-executable file. However, this will mean that under a 2.1R system, the dependancy will always be built regardless of if the file exists or not. Is it bad form in my Makefile to paste the new section that is appropriate so that it is backwards compatible ? Or, do new ports stay in ports-current, thus invalidating my question ? - Regarding patching files: My port currently uses straight recursive diffs to change pathnames from the original /usr/lib/X11 to /usr/X11R6/lib/X11. I've see other ports that use one-line sed scripts like this : s/\/usr\/lib\/X11/$PREFIX\/lib\/X11/ to do the same thing but make it more portable. portable. Is it worth the extra effort to take the latter approach? If I use the former, will users of Xaccel or other servers than Xfree86 be out of luck? -- j.