Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 00:27:45 -0800 (PST) From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: james@nexis.net Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Style for patching / new bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <199603260827.AAA08364@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960326005845.1528A-100000@nexis.net> (message from James FitzGibbon on Tue, 26 Mar 1996 01:05:31 -0500 (EST))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* - Using the new bsd.port.mk, I was able to make RUN_DEPENDS accept a * non-executable file. However, this will mean that under a 2.1R system, * the dependancy will always be built regardless of if the file exists or * not. Is it bad form in my Makefile to paste the new section that is * appropriate so that it is backwards compatible ? Or, do new ports stay * in ports-current, thus invalidating my question ? The latter. * - Regarding patching files: My port currently uses straight recursive * diffs to change pathnames from the original /usr/lib/X11 to * /usr/X11R6/lib/X11. I've see other ports that use one-line sed scripts * like this : * * s/\/usr\/lib\/X11/$PREFIX\/lib\/X11/ * * to do the same thing but make it more portable. portable. Is it worth the * extra effort to take the latter approach? If I use the former, will users * of Xaccel or other servers than Xfree86 be out of luck? I think the latter is better, as it is not only more portable, but easier to maintain (large diffs are pigs when you upgrade). What wicked program it is anyway to have "/usr/lib/X11" all over the place? Haven't they heard about imake? ;) Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603260827.AAA08364>