Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:11:30 -0500 From: Robert Noland <rnoland@FreeBSD.org> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@telenix.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> Subject: Re: portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <1236654690.1730.17.camel@balrog.2hip.net> In-Reply-To: <49B5CF76.60407@telenix.org> References: <49B41108.8060105@telenix.org> <20090308210404.3895216d@gumby.homeunix.com> <49B5BBB2.4080405@telenix.org> <1236647663.1730.10.camel@balrog.2hip.net> <49B5CF76.60407@telenix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-Tl9e8A1ztD7iz50sMavu Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 22:24 -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >=20 > 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 t= o > >>>>> fix this. Oh, BTW, I run current, and keep myself that way via cvs= up. > >>>> 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 origi= nal > >>>> 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? > >=20 > >> It's not exactly dead... I keep it running, because it is still the be= st > >> available option. >=20 > 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 archi= ve. 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. It wouldn't hurt it to have some love, but my other work keeps me busy. I've had ideas of things I would like to fix or extend, but not gotten around to it. So, no offense taken, it mostly just works for my purposes. robert. > 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 th= at > 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 th= e goal > behind it. >=20 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org >=20 > iEYEARECAAYFAkm1z28ACgkQz62J6PPcoOlZNgCcC86aFuuz37IerQpV6Z081IPT > ZrwAnRXsUgaQFnxg8WrllnAEF6DvJagF > =3D7mON > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=20 Robert Noland <rnoland@FreeBSD.org> FreeBSD --=-Tl9e8A1ztD7iz50sMavu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAkm12mIACgkQM4TrQ4qfROMlpgCfQL1bmaBa8ghBQl6JV0Y4v0vE sD8An3Q4uoxdiYs33OikOyhl9N9ggEp2 =hmFP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-Tl9e8A1ztD7iz50sMavu--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1236654690.1730.17.camel>