Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:50:00 -0400 From: Steve Wills <swills@FreeBSD.org> To: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "ruby@freebsd.org" <ruby@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: patching rubygems Message-ID: <72BA465B-2161-4ED7-9946-5A3D1F949B4B@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <A240DB49-7C07-4FF0-803B-905B2F244A53@freebsd.org> References: <501483B6.6080905@FreeBSD.org> <A240DB49-7C07-4FF0-803B-905B2F244A53@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 28, 2012, at 10:08 PM, Stanislav Sedov <stas@freebsd.org> wrote: > Thanks for the patch! I like the idea, though I'm not sure if it makes > sense to unpack all the gems we build. Won't it be better to unpack > just those gems we have patches for, and use the old code path for > gems that do not require patching? Perhaps, but I think there's also some value in doing them all the same way i= f possible, for the sake of simplicity. Also, I'm not sure of an easy way to= tell if a port has patches or not. I'd hate to have to add a variable to sp= ecify patching. Am I missing something existing that I can use for this? > Also, I don't really like the "rm -rf $WRKDIR" line. It looks scary. > Is it necessary to delete it and create it again? Besides, WRKDIR > should probably be quoted, otherwise bad things might happen if it > contains spaces (and probably all of the other variables too). I wrote most of this a while ago and can't even remember why I had that in t= here. Taking it and the next line out seemed to have no ill effects. Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?72BA465B-2161-4ED7-9946-5A3D1F949B4B>