From owner-freebsd-ports Sun May 4 07:54:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA26917 for ports-outgoing; Sun, 4 May 1997 07:54:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nexis.net (customer-1.ican.net [198.133.36.101]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA26902 for ; Sun, 4 May 1997 07:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (james@localhost) by nexis.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA03708; Sun, 4 May 1997 10:52:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 10:52:01 -0400 (EDT) From: James FitzGibbon To: Warner Losh cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Coping with OS specific patches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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.