Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 11:41:38 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Nicolas Rachinsky <list@rachinsky.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Third "RFC" on on pkg-data ideas for ports Message-ID: <p06020410bcd7c655c0d8@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20040524152639.GA12607@pc5.i.0x5.de> References: <p0602040dbcd716257540@[128.113.24.47]> <20040524152639.GA12607@pc5.i.0x5.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 5:26 PM +0200 5/24/04, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: >* Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> [2004-05-24 00:07 -0400]: >> The third proposal is basically: >> a) move most "standard" files into a new pkg-data >> file, as described in previous proposals, except >> for pkg-descr and "patch" files. >> b) create a new directory at the root directory of >> the ports collection. That directory would be >> called "Patches", and inside would be a directory >> for each category. Inside each Patches/category >> directory would be a single-file for each port >> in that category, where that single-file would >> have all the "ports-collection patches" for the >> matching port. > >I hoep I haven't missed something obvious, but what about local >patches and Makefile.local? Will they continue to work? Makefile.local should work as well as it currently does. I do agree that whatever is done, any major changes will have to continue to support local patches. We haven't written any of the patch-processing code yet so I can't say this is implemented, but it is an item on our checklist of things we must do. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06020410bcd7c655c0d8>