Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:46:46 +1000 From: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port building cookie files changed? Message-ID: <20060711024646.GC946@k7.mavetju> In-Reply-To: <20060711003919.GA1977@picobyte.net> References: <20060710233013.GB946@k7.mavetju> <20060711003919.GA1977@picobyte.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 01:39:20AM +0100, Shaun Amott wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 09:30:13AM +1000, Edwin Groothuis wrote: > > > > In an old ports framework, the cookie files were like this: > > .patch_done.ipv6calc-0.51._usr_local > > > > In the current framework, the cookie files are like this: > > .patch_done.ipv6calc._usr_local > > > > This gives false, or bad, or broken, cookies, because when I rebuild > > the same port with a different version number, it thinks it already > > has done the patching (and extracting, and building etc). > > > > So... who sneaked this in bsd.port.mk and why? > > > > According to the CVS log: > > * Use a consistent name for the cookies file when PKGNAMEPREFIX/SUFFIX > are set after bsd.port.pre.mk. > > The patch / an explanation is in ports/94219. So it went from PKGNAME to PORTNAME, which kind of killed the PORTVERSION, PORTREVISION and PORTEPOCH parts of it. These should be added again. The _COOKIES aren't used anywhere in the pre-section, nor are they user variables. Moving them to the post-section in the original form would have been a better solution. IMHO of course :-) Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis | Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org edwin@mavetju.org | Weblog: http://weblog.barnet.com.au/edwin/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060711024646.GC946>