Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:24:54 -0400 From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@telenix.org> To: Robert Noland <rnoland@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> Subject: Re: portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <49B5CF76.60407@telenix.org> In-Reply-To: <1236647663.1730.10.camel@balrog.2hip.net> References: <49B41108.8060105@telenix.org> <20090308210404.3895216d@gumby.homeunix.com> <49B5BBB2.4080405@telenix.org> <1236647663.1730.10.camel@balrog.2hip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Robert Noland wrote: > On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 21:00 -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: > RW wrote: >>>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:40:08 -0400 >>>> Chuck Robey <chuckr@telenix.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Here's the portmanager listing, maybe someone here can tell me what's >>>>> causing portmanager to want to patch my bsd.port.mk, and why the >>>>> patchfile should be so far off, and what might be the CORRECT way to >>>>> fix this. Oh, BTW, I run current, and keep myself that way via cvsup. >>>> IIRC the patch was made so that when portmanager built a port, the >>>> makefile would call back into portmanager to let it modify the >>>> dependencies. Portmanager had a major rewrite just before the original >>>> author had a row with some FreeBSD people and abandoned the project. >>>> AFAIK the feature wasn't yet used, so it doesn't matter if the patch >>>> doesn't apply since it's a null operation. > Ahh, I didn't realize that portmanager was moribund. OK, I can figure out what > to do from here, then, thanks. I might not like the method being used by > portmanager very much, but it's not worth complaining about a dead port. Too > many other choices, aren't there? > >> It's not exactly dead... I keep it running, because it is still the best >> available option. Just before sending my mail, I took a look at the cvs log, last entry is from more than 6 months ago, unless something is somehow fubared with my archive. If it sits unchanged for so long, I interpreted that as being dead, I wasn't trying to be insulting, maybe I made an incorrect assumption. The patch I saw in the bsd.port.mk was there in order to add in a couple of Makefile variables, and that just seems a really odd method to use for that purpose. I don't honestly know how portmanager works, so I couldn't give any meaningful criticism, it just seemed so odd that I couldn't figure out the goal behind it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkm1z28ACgkQz62J6PPcoOlZNgCcC86aFuuz37IerQpV6Z081IPT ZrwAnRXsUgaQFnxg8WrllnAEF6DvJagF =7mON -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49B5CF76.60407>