Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 21:31:35 +0000 (UTC) From: "G. Paul Ziemba" <pz-freebsd-ports@ziemba.us> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Proposal: mechanism for local patches Message-ID: <gh1l3n$22rv$1@hairball.ziemba.us>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Folks, I sometimes have local patches that I need to apply to ports. For various reasons, these patches are not available in the ports tree (e.g., bug fixes could be still propagating, or I'm trying out a bug fix locally before submitting it, or the local patches might be inappropriate or unwanted for the general FreeBSD populace, etc.) My current practice is to maintain my own tree of patch files and then reference them via EXTRA_PATCHES in /etc/make.conf. Mostly the patches get applied automatically when I upgrade my ports, and when the patches fail I learn about it immediately - no additional recordkeeping is required. However, I am looking for a better way. It's probably an unnatural use of EXTRA_PATCHES. Some ports define EXTRA_PATCHES themselves and override what I have defined in /etc/make.conf, so I have to resort to modifying the ports tree in place and keep yet another list of items to pay attention to when upgrading my ports. In hopes of stimulating some discussion, I propose a new variable, LOCAL_PATCHES (or maybe SITE_PATCHES), that would behave just like EXTRA_PATCHES, except that it would be designated specifically for site-local patches. It would be implemented in the do-patch target in bsd.port.mk at the end, after patches from PATCHDIR are applied, and patch Makefiles would, by convention, leave it unmolested. Have I overlooked some better approach to integrating site-local fixes? -- G. Paul Ziemba FreeBSD unix: 1:31PM up 23:01, 5 users, load averages: 0.20, 0.37, 0.72
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?gh1l3n$22rv$1>