From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Jan 18 05:34:13 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA03288 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 05:34:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from lsd.relcom.eu.net (root@lsd.relcom.eu.net [193.124.23.23]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA03274; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 05:34:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ache@lsd.relcom.eu.net) Received: (from ache@localhost) by lsd.relcom.eu.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA10099; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 06:38:45 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from ache) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 06:38:41 +0300 (MSK) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= X-Sender: ache@lsd.relcom.eu.net To: Peter Wemm cc: Eivind Eklund , Satoshi Asami , gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: amanda port, empty PATCH_STRIP= lines causes trouble In-Reply-To: <199801180311.LAA07487@spinner.netplex.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, Peter Wemm wrote: > I feel that it would have been far more appropriate to make a PORT of the > new patch to give the dust some time to settle rather than causing turmoil > in the base system. I personally believe the best thing would be to back > out the new patch ASAP. No, -current is right place just for new things integration. We'll forced to switch to new patch sooner or later, so better do it early. The only serious difference with old patch is 1) no backups made without -b 2) -p rules changed. see patch(1) In case you care about CVS Index'es, both new and old 'patch' behave _equally_ here. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://www.nagual.pp.ru/~ache/