On Sat, 24 May 2008 21:44:12 +0200 (CEST) Ganael LAPLANCHE wrote: > On Sat, 24 May 2008 12:17:07 -0600, John E Hein wrote
> > Why not pre- or post-patch - part of a stage that implies a > > modification of unpacked distfile(s)? > You are right, pre-patch may be better than post-extract in this way. I think > pre-patch is better than post-patch because one does not want to patch files > that won't be used in any way. It would also allow to avoid errors, not > working > on files that will be deleted :p > I have successfully tested this patch against bsd.linux-rpm.mk with > archivers/linux-par2cmdline, graphics/linux-png and > /usr/ports/graphics/linux-png10 : > 8<----------------------- > --- bsd.linux-rpm.mk.orig 2008-05-24 20:46:04.931665759 +0200 > +++ bsd.linux-rpm.mk 2008-05-24 21:32:51.721449935 +0200 > @@ -105,6 +105,20 @@ > BRANDELF_DIRS?= > BRANDELF_FILES?= > +# For ports that define PORTDOCS, be sure not to install > +# documentation if NOPORTDOCS is defined > +.if defined(PORTDOCS) && defined(NOPORTDOCS) > +pre-patch: linux-rpm-clean-portdocs > + > +. if !target(linux-rpm-clean-portdocs) > +linux-rpm-clean-portdocs: > +.for x in ${PORTDOCS} > + @${RM} -f ${WRKDIR}/${DOCSDIR_REL}/${x} > +.endfor > + @${RMDIR} ${WRKDIR}/${DOCSDIR_REL} > +. endif > +.endif > + > . if defined(AUTOMATIC_PLIST) > . if ${USE_LINUX} == "fc4" || ${USE_LINUX:L} == "yes" > 8<----------------------- > Any opinion welcome ;-) Seems that we found a consensus here ;-) The patch is OK to me, thanks! -- WBR, bsam _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"