Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:22:11 -0600 From: Scott Lambert <lambert@lambertfam.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal: mechanism for local patches Message-ID: <20081203202211.GA11883@sysmon.tcworks.net> In-Reply-To: <gh4pr0$p3b$1@hairball.ziemba.us> References: <20081202192410.GA69963@sysmon.tcworks.net> <gh4pr0$p3b$1@hairball.ziemba.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 02:10:40AM +0000, G. Paul Ziemba wrote:
> lambert@lambertfam.org (Scott Lambert) writes:
>
> >How about something like WRKDIRPREFIX?
>
> >Presumably the logic for dealing with that structure is already in
> >the system. Maybe you could have USE_LOCAL_PATCHES boolean which
> >uses ${CATEGORY}/${PORTNAME}/files subdirs in WRKDIRPREFIX, or
> >LOCALPATCHDIRPREFIX if you want to keep your patches in CVS/SVN without
> >polluting the CVS/SVN working directory.
>
>
> I'm not sure I undersand - do you mean that you'd pick one of
> $(WRKDIRPREFIX)/${CATEGORY}/${PORTNAME}/files or
> $(LOCALPATCHDIRPREFIX)/${CATEGORY}/${PORTNAME}/files to get
> patches from, based on the state of USE_LOCAL_PATCHES? But I was
> hoping to augment $(WRKDIRPREFIX)/${CATEGORY}/${PORTNAME}/files
> instead of replacing it.
I meant them as implementation options. The person doing the work to
add the functionality could choose which method to setup. I did *not*
mean that both options should be setup in the Mk infrastructure and
leave the choice to the user. But if the implementor wanted to do so,
that would be their choice.
Although, I suppose it could be setup such that only one new variable is
required, something like LOCALPATCHDIRPREFIX. LOCALPATCHDIRPREFIX could
default to WRKDIRPREFIX.
--
Scott Lambert KC5MLE Unix SysAdmin
lambert@lambertfam.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081203202211.GA11883>