On 11/14/06, Dirk Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hallo Charles Sprickman,
> I'm finding that there are a number of ports that we need to patch for
> some functionality that's unique to our business (qmail, mailfront, etc.).
> Currently we just do "make patch" and then apply our patches. This
Hallo Charles Sprickman,
> I'm finding that there are a number of ports that we need to patch for
> some functionality that's unique to our business (qmail, mailfront, etc.).
> Currently we just do "make patch" and then apply our patches. This works,
> but is a bit of a pain to maintain.
> Is
Matthew Seaman wrote:
> That's a generic problem with ports -- instead of registering a
> dependency on the package that provided the file that satisfied the
> test specified by the FOO_DEPENDS variable in the port Makefile, the
> dependency is registered on the default package to install to resol
Charles,
On Nov 3, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
Hello all,
I'm finding that there are a number of ports that we need to patch
for some functionality that's unique to our business (qmail,
mailfront, etc.). Currently we just do "make patch" and then apply
our patches. This w
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:30:47PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> I'm finding that there are a number of ports that we need to patch for
> some functionality that's unique to our business (qmail, mailfront, etc.).
> Currently we just do "make patch" and then apply our patches. This works,
>
On Nov 3, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
Is there some mechanism that I'm missing to deal with a local
category? I've been googling without much luck, and I didn't see
this addressed in the porter's handbook.
Check the June 8 archives for this mailing list, for my message wit
Charles Sprickman wrote:
> Is there a way to create a "local" category? ie: /usr/ports/LOCAL
Create /usr/ports/Makefile.local containing:
SUBDIR+= LOCAL
> -By default cvsup and (I assume portsnap) would nuke anything in
> /usr/ports that was not part of the main ports tree. How can this be
You've got a bunch of misconceptions. In this case, that turns out to
be good, because the solutions are a lot simpler than you think.
Charles Sprickman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm finding that there are a number of ports that we need to patch for
> some functionality that's
Hello all,
I'm finding that there are a number of ports that we need to patch for
some functionality that's unique to our business (qmail, mailfront, etc.).
Currently we just do "make patch" and then apply our patches. This works,
but is a bit of a pain to maintain.
Is there a way to create
