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]"
