Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:14:05 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: patches/ handling Message-ID: <20000607091405.A55268@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20000607090533.D44242@FreeBSD.org>; from ade@FreeBSD.org on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 09:05:34AM -0500 References: <20000605184259.A21736@cichlids.cichlids.com> <20000606210209.B20037@dragon.nuxi.com> <20000607090533.D44242@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 09:05:34AM -0500, Ade Lovett wrote: > 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. I hand you ``uname -m'' and case/esac. :-) > 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. I VERY much agree with you. I believe the separate arch patch path will be a maintenance nightmare. > -aDe [still trying to locate a <$1k Alpha for ports checking, > enquire within.. :)] Others interested in such things please let me know. I've got some leads on identifiying sources of such things. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000607091405.A55268>