Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:57:48 +0200 From: Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de> To: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: patches/ handling Message-ID: <20000608015748.A21901@cichlids.cichlids.com> In-Reply-To: <20000607170352.F353@FreeBSD.org>; from ade@FreeBSD.org on Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 05:03:52PM -0500 References: <20000605184259.A21736@cichlids.cichlids.com> <20000606210209.B20037@dragon.nuxi.com> <20000607090533.D44242@FreeBSD.org> <20000607091405.A55268@dragon.nuxi.com> <20000607202517.D15229@cichlids.cichlids.com> <20000607134522.A353@FreeBSD.org> <20000607205859.A16247@cichlids.cichlids.com> <20000607170352.F353@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thus spake Ade Lovett (ade@FreeBSD.org): > > ********************************************************************** > > * THERE IS ALREADY THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A SEPERATE ARCH/OPSYS * > > * PATCHDIR. > Ok. Deep breath. Heh :) My capslock key happened to hang :) > (c) I'll send you some virtual beers, or should we ever meet > in person, the drinks will be on me. *rotfl* > Therefore, I'm suggesting that ALL support for patches.<arch> > be removed from bsd.port.mk -- by definition, that includes your > extensions. Hmm. The patches.arch is one of patches.arch, files.arch and pkg.arch. So either all or none must be removed. > port, and a few more waiting in the wings (I'm already starting to > have nightmares about making GNOME work on them :) -- we have lol > We have your suggestion, which is to extend the present scheme as > provided by bsd.port.mk. That's 1 vote. > That's the easy bit, which will take about a minute to do, should > we go for that option. However, in this case, the issue is deep > enough that it needs to be resolved before patches are made up. The question is not the patch but the _idea_ behind that patch, which matters. Well, to conclude - I do not strictly depend on my additional patches or on the removal. The thing is: I've discussed that with several folks on IRCNet now, and all of them agreed, that _generally_ the way should be that:... a) patch general then b) patch more and more specific ...and not _one_ strict patches/ dir which contains the same patches as another dir for another arch. So, if we forbid using patches.<arch> in the Porter's Handbook (only for rare cases, which noone of us could provide), I'm also satisfied, since we chose a solution and used that, and didn't use a half-cooked solution, if you know what I mean .-P Alex, who just happened to watch "Gladiator" at the cinema, and I'm very impressed. That movie is GREAT. -- 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?20000608015748.A21901>