Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 17:46:38 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Andrzej Tobola <ato@iem.pw.edu.pl> Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: suggested patch for bsd.ports.mk Message-ID: <d57b967c-7712-d6ef-e9cf-4f1238e97142@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20160513072607.GB17437@volt.iem.pw.edu.pl> References: <d857274b-908a-4873-1f81-ea99cb1fdbba@freebsd.org> <20160513072607.GB17437@volt.iem.pw.edu.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 13/05/2016 3:26 PM, Andrzej Tobola wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:11:47AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: >> This patch is pretty self explanatory. >> >> it allows us to keep patches for various ports separately in a sparse >> hierarchy while not having to write to the ports tree itself. >> >> In case the list scrubs hte text attachment (diff) here's the >> description part of the diff. > >From a long time I am using unionfs - it simpler and allows also > to modyfy/mask all port files - e.g: > > mount -t nullfs -o ro /pub/FreeBSD/SVN/ports /usr/ports > mount -t unionfs -o ro /usr/local/ports /usr/ports > > -a > that is cool but it is not really suitable for use in a company's build farm.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d57b967c-7712-d6ef-e9cf-4f1238e97142>