Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 20:22:53 +0200 From: Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: patches/ handling Message-ID: <20000607202253.C15229@cichlids.cichlids.com> In-Reply-To: <20000607092808.B55616@dragon.nuxi.com>; from obrien@FreeBSD.ORG on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 09:28:08AM -0700 References: <20000605184259.A21736@cichlids.cichlids.com> <20000606210209.B20037@dragon.nuxi.com> <20000607095546.B979@cichlids.cichlids.com> <20000607092808.B55616@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thus spake David O'Brien (obrien@FreeBSD.ORG): > > That is a different issue, since we already suppor the patches.arch/ > > dirs. So _when_ they are used, I'd like to see that behaviour. > I'd like to see them go away. What about 64-bit patches? We need a copy > of it in patches.alpha and patches.ia64 ? Imagine following scenario: two PREFIX patches (patch-aa and -ab), one arch patch for both IA64 and Alpha, since the software author is an i386 weenie (patch-ac). Imagine, as nbm pointed out, non-preprocessor capable port, so you can't use #ifdef __alpha__ Currently: patches.i386/ patch-aa patch-ab patches.alpha/ patch-aa patch-ab patch-ac patches.ia64/ patch-aa patch-ab patch-ac --> 8 files New handling: patches/ patch-aa patch-ab patches.alpha/ patch-ac patches.ia64/ patch-ac --> 4 files _Additionally_: IMO, patches are more easy to maintain if they are separated into arch and _not_ #ifdef'd. It's _much_ cleaner and makes the work for porters more easy. Alex -- This is a FreeBSD advocacy ~/.sig. 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?20000607202253.C15229>