From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Jan 16 10: 8:13 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from blizzard.sabbo.net (ns.sabbo.net [193.193.218.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F3937B400; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:07:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from vic.sabbo.net (root@vic.sabbo.net [193.193.218.112]) by blizzard.sabbo.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f0GI6p227805; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:07:49 +0200 Received: from FreeBSD.org (big_brother.vega.com [192.168.1.1]) by vic.sabbo.net (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f0GI70r00949; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:07:00 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <3A648DBE.C678904B@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:06:55 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev Organization: Vega International Capital X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: uk,ru,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andreas Klemm Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, asami@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: how to tag ports before doing major changes and suggestion ... References: <20010116133356.A26389@titan.klemm.gtn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Andreas Klemm wrote: > Hi ! > > I want to committ changes to the ghostscript6 port. > > These changes are huge and I'd like to tag the port > prior committing the changes, so that a parallel > ghostscript65 port can be avoided. > > Just for the case 65 doesn't do well, I could backout stuff > more easier, since patches vanished and have been added, etc ... Hm, what's the problem? You can always use -D cvs option to get version of the port just prior to your upgrade. No tag really necessary here. > While I'm at it ... > I noticed, that some people use new naming conventions for > patches, by using descriptive names instead of the patch-xy > scheme. It's easier to preserve history with this scheme, as there is 1-to-1 mapping between name of the patch and name of the file being patched. Please consider the following situation: you have a long-living port (ghostscript should be a good example) with a lot of history. Obviously there are lot of patches both active and in Attic, so each time you do an upgrade and see the need to add a new patch you have to grep patches in the Attic to see if you should revive some patch-xx from the Attic, or you can allocate a new name that was not used previously. This is PITA of course. With the new conventions it works automagically. > How's the motivation to change existing port to that new scheme ? > Does the port maintainer simply move the file within the repository > or do I have to delete and add the patch under the new name ??? You should ensure that the history is preserved, i.e. you have either ask repomeister to repo-copy existing patches into the corresponding ones with new names and only then remove old ones, or use old names for the old patches, and new conventions for the new patches. I would suggest to take a look at my forthcoming patchtool tool (~sobomax/public_html/patchtool), that should simplify operations if you would prefer the latter way. -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message