Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:51:18 +0200 From: Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make update broken Message-ID: <467663A6.3080006@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <46704964.7000205@FreeBSD.org> References: <466279CC.8030200@gmx.de> <4663D0B9.4000602@FreeBSD.org> <46701E0B.6010804@gmx.de> <46701FAD.7020204@FreeBSD.org> <20070613173159.GK90672@droso.net> <46704964.7000205@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alex Dupre ha scritto: > Erwin Lansing wrote: >> As I described earlier, SUP_UPDATE, CVS_UPDATE and PORTSNAP_UPDATE are >> mutually exclusive and cannot be used at the same time. From src/Makefile.inc1: # update # # Update the source tree, by running cvsup and/or running cvs to update # to the latest copy. From ports/Makefile rev. 1.61 commit log: Allow both SUP_UPDATE and CVS_UPDATE to be used, similar to src/Makefile The same commit introduced the check ".if defined(SUP_UPDATE) && !defined(PORTSSUPFILE)" with a different meaning from what you say. All the docs I found says explicitly (and does accordingly) that SUP_UPDATE and CVS_UPDATE are *not* mutually exclusive and that SUP_UPDATE can be defined *without* PORTSUPFILE. >> Please send-pr your patch, but >> please also add documentation of the new meaning of PORTSNAP_UPDATE. > > I'll do it. PR 113819 -- Alex Dupre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?467663A6.3080006>