On Jan 22, 2011, at 03:23, [email protected] wrote: > Revision: 75337 > http://trac.macports.org/changeset/75337 > Author: [email protected] > Date: 2011-01-22 01:23:01 -0800 (Sat, 22 Jan 2011)
> Modified: trunk/dports/science/ncarg/Portfile
> + reinplace "s|int_p_NULL|(int*)NULL|g"
> ${worksrcpath}/ncarg2d/src/libncarg/ezmap/mapngb.c
This is exactly the kind of change that would be more appropriately made as a
patchfile, not a reinplace. The patchfile provides context around where the
change is made, so that if the upstream software changes in the future, and the
patch needs to be modified, the context in the existing patch can help you
identify where in the revised source the changes need to be made; if using a
reinplace, you won't get any notification if the reinplace has failed to make
the change (unless you apply the MacPorts base patch in #15514). Also, if
upstream incorporates this change, with a patch, you'd again get notification
the patch failed to apply; with a reinplace, you'll never know unless you go
look for yourself every time you update the port. The no-longer-necessary
reinplace would not cause any harm, but it would clutter up the portfile.
I could understand using a reinplace if there were hundreds of occurrences to
be replaced, which would make for an unnecessarily large patchfile, but in this
case, we're talking about changes to a single line of a single file only.
Attached is the patch I would suggest the portfile use instead.
patch-ncarg2d-src-libncarg-ezmap-mapngb.c.diff
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
