Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:59:13 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Optional patching? Message-ID: <43CA00D1.40003@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <F79AA6823B35E107A7317B9F@Paul-Schmehls-Computer.local> References: <F79AA6823B35E107A7317B9F@Paul-Schmehls-Computer.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul Schmehl wrote: > I have an interesting situation. I maintain the security/barnyard port. > It's used for several things, one of which is sguil. (I'm working on > new ports for that as well.) Barnyard includes a plugin for sguil, > named op_sguil.plugin. > > The sguil developers have changed the way they gather data for the > newest release, 0.6.x. The new release requires that you patch barnyard > to update the op_sguil.plugin. However, people who are still running > the older versions of sguil; 0.5.x cannot use the new, patched version > of the op_sguil.plugin. > > My question is, is it possible to make a patch optional? Yes, that information is in the porter's handbook: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/index.html However, given the situation you described, I would suggest that you instead add a new port for "barnyard plus squil support" as a slave to the barnyard port, and include the patch there. Don't forget to add CONFLICTS to each as appropriate. hth, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43CA00D1.40003>