Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2017 11:43:04 -0500 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: "ports\@FreeBSD.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: using ports for things they were never meant to do Message-ID: <44a8b4m95z.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> In-Reply-To: <73d145f2-10e4-17f6-07e6-a2bde375f87e@freebsd.org> (Julian Elischer's message of "Fri, 6 Jan 2017 16:40:20 %2B0800") References: <73d145f2-10e4-17f6-07e6-a2bde375f87e@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> writes: > So this seems to be a speciality of mine. > > I often find that I need a ports tree at rev X except for some port > foo/bar that needs to be at some different rev (Y) to pick up a > fix/change needed by the application. Now there is no reason that I > can't just edit the distinfo file and the Makefile and replace X with > Y, and that nearly always works if X and Y are not too different. I'd > prefer however to be able to upgrade the Makefile to the right level, > but that then hits the problem that he Makefile is using an API with > the rest of the ports system, that is rapidly changing. SO you have > much more chance of your build failing because of Makefile changes > than due to incompatibilities in the distfiles. > > My personal way of handing that would be to break the pkg rev out to a > separate file with nothing but PORTVERSION and PORTREVISION in it so > that the version of the distfile being fetched is divorced from the > ports API. Then in my tree I update distinfo and the new Portrev and > leave the Makefile alone. > > Does anyone else have a better way to slide a particular port back or > ahead compared to the rest of the tree? I find it easier to use sticky dates in Subversion...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44a8b4m95z.fsf>