Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:18:10 -0500 From: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> To: Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru> Cc: paul+usenet@w6yx.stanford.edu, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal: mechanism for local patches Message-ID: <20081202201810.GB8753@atarininja.org> In-Reply-To: <20081202201610.GA8753@atarininja.org> References: <gh1l3n$22rv$1@hairball.ziemba.us> <20081202180743.GB70240@hades.panopticon> <20081202201610.GA8753@atarininja.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 03:16:10PM -0500, Wesley Shields wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 09:07:43PM +0300, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> > * G. Paul Ziemba (pz-freebsd-ports@ziemba.us) wrote:
> >
> > > In hopes of stimulating some discussion, I propose a new variable,
> > > LOCAL_PATCHES (or maybe SITE_PATCHES), that would behave just like
> > > EXTRA_PATCHES, except that it would be designated specifically for
> > > site-local patches. It would be implemented in the do-patch target
> > > in bsd.port.mk at the end, after patches from PATCHDIR are applied,
> > > and patch Makefiles would, by convention, leave it unmolested.
> > >
> > > Have I overlooked some better approach to integrating site-local
> > > fixes?
> >
> > I am not aware of any mechanism for this. But I agree that it's
> > really needed. Before (in cvsup times) we could just place patches
> > under files/ and be happy, but now when more people use portsnap
> > we need something better.
> >
> > I think making another variable that behaves like EXTRA_PATCHES is
> > not convenient - you'll have to provide it per-port which means
> > conditionals in make.conf.
> >
> > I think the most convenient way of implementing this is having
> > a directory hierarchy (either two level ${CATEGORY}/${PORTNAME}/patch-*)
> > or single level ${PORTNAME}/patch-*) and a single variable that makes
> > port system look there for patches in addition to ${PATCHDIR}.
> >
> > Thus, you only have to add a single line to make.conf:
> >
> > USE_LOCALPATCHES= /usr/ports/local-patches
> > (or /whereever)
> >
> > and from there on files will be searced in
> >
> > either /usr/ports/local-patches/${CATEGORY}/${PORTNAME}
> > /usr/ports/local-patches/${PORTNAME}.
> >
> > AFAIK, port names are unique in the whole portstree, so single level
> > layout seems to be easier to handle.
>
> I like you're idea here, but unfortunately directory names are not
Make that "port names" instead of "directory names" in this context.
-- WXS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081202201810.GB8753>