Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:42:34 +0200 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Hunks failed, is this bad? Message-ID: <46E8412A.10803@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20070912184253.6dbbe24f@gumby.homeunix.com.> References: <E415058D-8E16-4634-B6E4-3166988F156B@dragffy.com> <46E72690.8020707@FreeBSD.org> <20070912022352.77090199@epia-2.farid-hajji.net> <20070912184253.6dbbe24f@gumby.homeunix.com.>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
RW wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:23:52 +0200 > cpghost <cpghost@cordula.ws> wrote: > >> IIRC, it's portmanager that patches bsd.port.mk on the fly >> (and backs the change out when it is done). Or it did so a >> while ago; I don't know if it still does today. >> >> Try to update portmanager, or use something else like portmaster >> or portupgrade, if updating portmanager didn't work. >> > Portmanger acquired this feature just before Schultz went off in a > huff. > > What it does is is patch bsd.port.mk so that it calls back > into portmanager allowing it to modify dependencies. I haven't > checked the code, but since I've not seen any evidence of > portmanager trying to modify dependencies in the last few years, I > suspect that the support for the callback is just a stub. If that's > true then using an unpatched file is harmless. Wow, that is so wrong :O Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46E8412A.10803>