Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 21:25:03 -0500 From: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> To: paul+usenet@w6yx.stanford.edu Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal: mechanism for local patches Message-ID: <20081203022503.GC8753@atarininja.org> In-Reply-To: <gh4q1s$p3b$2@hairball.ziemba.us> References: <20081202194551.GC45319@rwpc12.mby.riverwillow.net.au> <gh4q1s$p3b$2@hairball.ziemba.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 02:14:20AM +0000, G. Paul Ziemba wrote:
> john.marshall@riverwillow.com.au (John Marshall) writes:
>
> >On Tue, 02 Dec 2008, 21:07 +0300, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> >> I think the most convenient way of implementing this is having
> >> a directory hierarchy (either two level ${CATEGORY}/${PORTNAME}/patch-*)
> >> or single level ${PORTNAME}/patch-*) and a single variable that makes
> >> port system look there for patches in addition to ${PATCHDIR}.
>
> >Or keep local patches under /var/db/ports/<port> rather than building a
> >new tree?
>
> Hmm. I haven't really understood the way directories get named in
> /var/db/ports/ - what happens when there is a collision in the
> base name of two ports? It seems less obvious than
> /<foo>/${CATEGORY}/${PORTNAME}/
It uses UNIQUENAME, which is documented in Mk/bsd.port.mk.
-- WXS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081203022503.GC8753>