Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:25:36 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@apropo.ro> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: one or more patch files / optional patch ? Message-ID: <20040226212536.GA7216@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20040226232358.71a31aa5@it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro> References: <20040226232358.71a31aa5@it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:23:58PM +0200, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > Hi, >=20 >=20 > The Porters Handbook says "To make fixes and upgrades easier, you should > avoid having more than one patch fix the same file"; I'm in the reverse > situation, e.g. I have to patch 4 files for adding a feature to a port. > It will only make sense to patch all the files or none. Should the patch > be split in 4 files or not ? Yes, I think this is also documented in the porter's handbook. It's a real pain in the ass to update patches when there's more than one patch per file. > I also want to use OPTIONS to allow the user to choose if he wants this > feature or not. How can I integrate this with patch target (e.g. having > the patch in files/ but only applied if WITH_ is set) ? EXTRA_PATCHES Kris --NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAPmRPWry0BWjoQKURAnA3AJ4rGI0OZPxGwudcj6i4Emdynss7EQCeKpZq ChOiK5XFhJ4ePu/Lze/srJM= =/VvE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040226212536.GA7216>