Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 10:52:01 -0400 (EDT) From: James FitzGibbon <james@nexis.net> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Coping with OS specific patches Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970504104946.3588B-100000@nexis.net> In-Reply-To: <E0wNqOU-0000ji-00@rover.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 3 May 1997, Warner Losh wrote:
> environment, it would be best if it were in a separate directory. I'm
> thinking that patches-${OSNAME} (eg patches-FreeBSD) might not be a
> bad thing to do. The patches would then be applied in the following
> order:
> patches/* patches-${OSNAME}/*
> to make things less ambiguous. This would allow a parallel tree to be
> maintained by other groups with their own patches. I could see this
> being a very big win to the whole process. If someone has better
> ideas than what I'm proposing, please let me know. Very few ports
The issue here would be that if you want to build upon the FreeBSD ports
tree, which for legacy reasons would have to own the patches/ directory,
then any other OSes that have their own patches directory would have to
have applied FreeBSD's first.
The idea is good, but rather than the default being to apply the standard
patches directory, why not make the default to just apply
patches-${OSNAME}, and if a certain flag is set, also apply the FreeBSD
ones.
--
j.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.970504104946.3588B-100000>