On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 09:31:35PM +0000, G. Paul Ziemba wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I sometimes have local patches that I need to apply to ports. For > various reasons, these patches are not available in the ports tree > (e.g., bug fixes could be still propagating, or I'm trying out a > bug fix locally before submitting it, or the local patches might be > inappropriate or unwanted for the general FreeBSD populace, etc.) > > My current practice is to maintain my own tree of patch files and > then reference them via EXTRA_PATCHES in /etc/make.conf. Mostly > the patches get applied automatically when I upgrade my ports, and > when the patches fail I learn about it immediately - no additional > recordkeeping is required. > > However, I am looking for a better way. It's probably an unnatural > use of EXTRA_PATCHES. Some ports define EXTRA_PATCHES themselves and > override what I have defined in /etc/make.conf, so I have to resort > to modifying the ports tree in place and keep yet another list of > items to pay attention to when upgrading my ports. > > In hopes of stimulating some discussion, I propose a new variable, > LOCAL_PATCHES (or maybe SITE_PATCHES), that would behave just like > EXTRA_PATCHES, except that it would be designated specifically for > site-local patches. It would be implemented in the do-patch target > in bsd.port.mk at the end, after patches from PATCHDIR are applied, > and patch Makefiles would, by convention, leave it unmolested. > > Have I overlooked some better approach to integrating site-local > fixes?
I'm not aware of anything of this nature which exists. I think it's a good idea and would be happy to review anything you are willing to submit back to FreeBSD. -- WXS _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
