Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 22:03:08 -0500 From: "Jim Trigg" <jtrigg@spamcop.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal: mechanism for local patches Message-ID: <87ef649b0812021903x7e2d3ee9h90dde2dcffe4e2be@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20081203020857.523645bc@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <gh1l3n$22rv$1@hairball.ziemba.us> <20081202180743.GB70240@hades.panopticon> <20081203020857.523645bc@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:08 PM, RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> wrote: > I wonder if portsnap actually needs to behave the way it does. > > Portsnap stores its compressed snapshot as one .gz file for each > port plus one for each additional file (files in Mk/ etc). When you > do an "update" any modified snapshot files are extracted over > the appropriate location in the ports tree. > > The reason that "portsnap extract" deletes patch-files is that before > each .gz file is extracted, the corresponding file or port directory is > deleted. I wonder why, if an "update" can decompress over the top of a > port, an "extract" need to delete it first. I can't think of any good > reason offhand. > > Modifying portsnap not to delete extra files is just a matter of > deleting one line. The behaviour of portsnap extract would then be > virtually identical to csup. Alternately, it wouldn't be much harder to > create a new portsnap command. I would presume that it does that to get rid of "standard" patch files that are no longer part of the port... Jim Trigg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87ef649b0812021903x7e2d3ee9h90dde2dcffe4e2be>