Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:58:45 -0400
From:      Greg Larkin <glarkin@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Linda Messerschmidt <linda.messerschmidt@gmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Local patches to ports?
Message-ID:  <48C6D575.3080602@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <237c27100809091212t3d840b02k4e64e8d718f7ff8d@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <237c27100809091212t3d840b02k4e64e8d718f7ff8d@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Linda Messerschmidt wrote:
> Hello,
> We use Apache 1.3 on FreeBSD and for a long time, we have maintained our own
> build process separate from the ports collection because we have some local
> patches.
> 
> These are accounting patches, of interest to no one but us, so I have no
> chance of getting anyone upstream to ever adopt them, but they are very
> important to us.
> 
> After our last upgrade to 7-STABLE (7.1-PRERELEASE) our local build process
> started producing broken binaries but the port has patches and one of them
> makes it work.  So, this seems like a good time to replace our build process
> with the ports collection.
> 
> What's the best way to preserve our local patches and our custom
> configuration flags, and get them to apply to each new update of the port?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -LM

Hi Linda,

I would recommend setting up a local Tinderbox installation:
http://tinderbox.marcuscom.com/

Once you get it installed, you can configure it to call user-defined
hook scripts at various points, such as after a ports tree update.  When
fired, your script can patch in your changes before the build starts.

Before I knew about Tinderbox, I once set up a local ports tree in
/usr/ports/local.  In that directory, I created whatever port directory
I needed, such as /usr/ports/local/www/apache13, and created a small
Makefile to override some settings and then include the base port
Makefile.  That worked reasonably well, but I don't think I ever tested
whether a local port upgraded cleanly.

I'm leaning more and more toward the Tinderbox methodology, especially
as I work on a process for auto-provisioning FreeBSD virtual machines.
I like the fact that it builds all dependent ports and you can keep
multiple build trees for different purposes.  All of the packages live
in a well-defined area, and portupgrade -PP should work for performing
binary upgrades.

Hope that helps,
Greg
- --
Greg Larkin

http://www.FreeBSD.org/       - The Power To Serve
http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIxtV10sRouByUApARAlGrAJ9RfslTysp3XIiV/kY3mfBRcuo0SQCfWvcu
+d89pMd9zWdLL0+c4kQspH0=
=YxFf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48C6D575.3080602>