On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Garrett Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:13 AM, G. Paul Ziemba > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dmitry Marakasov) writes: >>>> 1. Good that it's at the end of the do-patch target - that way local >>>> patches can happen after the "official" patches >> >>>Not sure if it's good actually. >> >>>On the one hand, you usually have patches against vanilla sources, and >>>just want to drop them to some dir and have them applied. >>>Also, there's USE_DOS2UNIX that comes before any actual patching, so for >>>ports that use USE_DOS2UNIX you'll have to adapt patches by hand. >> >>>On the other hand, this may cause conflicts with patches from ports, >> >> If the local patches were applied before the official ports patches, >> the official patches could fail, or they could undo some of the >> modifications made by local patches. I think it would be an incorrect >> result. >> >> >From the point of view of the local patches, there is potential for >> variation in the upstream files regardless of whether they are >> modified by official ports patches, so doing local patching first >> doesn't let you avoid tweaking local patches from time to time. >> >>>Updated version here: >>>http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/local-patchdir.patch >> >> It looks good to me. Thanks! > > FreeBSD maintained patches can change at any instant a developer makes > a commit to the ports tree, so doing either a vanilla patch or a patch > after a patch will require some level of rework, regardless. > > One thing though -- I think that if this item does get supported it > should be noted that while the FreeBSD project supports the patching > functionality, they shouldn't be in charge of the patches. I know most > users / admins would understand this point clearly, but it needs to be > made apparent in the port distfiles, or using some method, that an > individual is using self-patched and maintained sources.
Just to clarify: s/be in charge of patches/be expected to support patching issues/ > Gentoo Linux uses the concept of portage overlays to deal with this > issue, but I'm not sure if that's the best method to approach this > problem with, as our ports system isn't yet adapted to this level of > thinking, and since we don't have a means of masking port versions > today (mind you -- I'm not really suggesting that this should be done > -- version masking and arch masking is a real maintenance nightmare > for the support groups and we have enough fun dealing with our ports > tree :)..). > > My 2 cents, > -Garrett -Garrett _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
