Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 05:06:56 +0400 (MSD) From: "."@babolo.ru To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Third "RFC" on on pkg-data ideas for ports Message-ID: <1085706416.435647.1217.nullmailer@cicuta.babolo.ru> In-Reply-To: <p06020410bcd7c655c0d8@[128.113.24.47]>
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. Local patches: PR ports/45200 Or more correct http://free.babolo.ru/patch/ports.Mk.port.mk.patch (part of)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1085706416.435647.1217.nullmailer>