Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:04:16 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: EXTRA_PATCHES considered harmful? Message-ID: <c5ec09f0-55c7-4cf7-8731-c00cb415b157@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <E67BEC92-E32A-4D61-A8CA-7BA2AD9ABC79@adamw.org> References: <aab5d142-4e07-a4b2-1b92-bbc0778509a5@freebsd.org> <E67BEC92-E32A-4D61-A8CA-7BA2AD9ABC79@adamw.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 24/9/17 6:37 am, Adam Weinberger wrote: >> On 23 Sep, 2017, at 15:39, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> e.g. cd /usr/ports/emulators/open-vm-tools-nox11; Make EXTRA_PATCHES=/foo/bar/patch1 >> >> will fail when it tries to apply the patch files to each dependency. >> >> 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=/usr/patches > Then put your patch1 in /usr/patches/emulators/open-vm-tools-nox11 > > # Adam > > You are correct and I am moving to that.. In fact I submitted the idea of EXTRA_PATCH_TREE, though it was reimplemented during a rewrite. (but the comments saying what it is are still mine).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c5ec09f0-55c7-4cf7-8731-c00cb415b157>