Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 16:37:24 -0600 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: EXTRA_PATCHES considered harmful? Message-ID: <E67BEC92-E32A-4D61-A8CA-7BA2AD9ABC79@adamw.org> In-Reply-To: <aab5d142-4e07-a4b2-1b92-bbc0778509a5@freebsd.org> References: <aab5d142-4e07-a4b2-1b92-bbc0778509a5@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 23 Sep, 2017, at 15:39, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 > currently if you set EXTRA_PATCHES and the port you are making decides = to build a second port as a dependency, EXTRA_PATCHES is passed to the = second port which them obiously fails to patch it. >=20 > e.g. cd /usr/ports/emulators/open-vm-tools-nox11; Make = EXTRA_PATCHES=3D/foo/bar/patch1 >=20 > will fail when it tries to apply the patch files to each dependency. >=20 > AM I doing something wrong here? Hi Julian, I think EXTRA_PATCH_TREE is a better option for what you're looking for. = You put patches in there in a tree that gets essentially overlaid on the = ports tree. EXTRA_PATCH_TREE=3D/usr/patches Then put your patch1 in /usr/patches/emulators/open-vm-tools-nox11 # Adam --=20 Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E67BEC92-E32A-4D61-A8CA-7BA2AD9ABC79>