From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Jun 7 7: 5:39 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from coredump.lovett.com (hub.lovett.com [216.60.121.161]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AAF537B8C3; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 07:05:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ade@lovett.com) Received: from ade by coredump.lovett.com with local (Exim 3.14 #1) id 12zgSc-000Btn-00; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 09:05:34 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:05:34 -0500 From: Ade Lovett To: David O'Brien Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: patches/ handling Message-ID: <20000607090533.D44242@FreeBSD.org> References: <20000605184259.A21736@cichlids.cichlids.com> <20000606210209.B20037@dragon.nuxi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20000606210209.B20037@dragon.nuxi.com>; from obrien@freebsd.org on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 09:02:10PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 09:02:10PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > Why can't the patches' code be wrapped by "#ifdef __alpha__" and have a > single patch? This will work fine for source patches.. I'm just wondering if there are any other cases where we might have to patch other things (like "portable" configure scripts) differently depending on architecture. If not, then IMHO, the whole patches.*/ thing is significantly over-engineered at the moment - of course, if we start increasing the number of FreeBSD platforms (IA64 and some parts of Sparc being the next logical contenders), we may have to revisit this. -aDe [still trying to locate a <$1k Alpha for ports checking, enquire within.. :)] -- Ade Lovett, Austin, TX. ade@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD: The Power to Serve http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message