Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:19:43 +0000 (UTC) From: naddy@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Second "RFC" on pkg-data idea for ports Message-ID: <c60ckf$2229$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de> References: <p0602040cbca10a7dbe52@[128.113.24.47]> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404171330130.26375-100000@pancho>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote: > 2. (intermediate) Let's change the way we think about patchfiles. > Instead of seeing them as a permanent part of the port, perhaps we > should instead be thinking about each one as a temporary measure until > we can get the original software's authors to incorporate them upstream. I'm under the impression that this is exactly the way we already operate. Even in cases where the upstream maintainers eagerly gobble up our patches, there usual is still a one release gap, i.e. our port patches for version N will only be in release N+1. Then there are unmaintained pieces of software; maintainers that refuse patches because they say that's FreeBSD's breakage and they don't care; it is easier to slap a quick bandaid on a specific problem than to come up with a truly portable solution; some differences are just policy, such as hier(7) differences; and the list probably goes on. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c60ckf$2229$1>