On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 22:24 -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Robert Noland wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 21:00 -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: > > RW wrote: > >>>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:40:08 -0400 > >>>> Chuck Robey <chu...@telenix.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Here's the portmanager listing, maybe someone here can tell me what's > >>>>> causing portmanager to want to patch my bsd.port.mk, and why the > >>>>> patchfile should be so far off, and what might be the CORRECT way to > >>>>> fix this. Oh, BTW, I run current, and keep myself that way via cvsup. > >>>> IIRC the patch was made so that when portmanager built a port, the > >>>> makefile would call back into portmanager to let it modify the > >>>> dependencies. Portmanager had a major rewrite just before the original > >>>> author had a row with some FreeBSD people and abandoned the project. > >>>> AFAIK the feature wasn't yet used, so it doesn't matter if the patch > >>>> doesn't apply since it's a null operation. > > Ahh, I didn't realize that portmanager was moribund. OK, I can figure out > > what > > to do from here, then, thanks. I might not like the method being used by > > portmanager very much, but it's not worth complaining about a dead port. > > Too > > many other choices, aren't there? > > > >> It's not exactly dead... I keep it running, because it is still the best > >> available option. > > Just before sending my mail, I took a look at the cvs log, last entry is from > more than 6 months ago, unless something is somehow fubared with my archive. > If > it sits unchanged for so long, I interpreted that as being dead, I wasn't > trying > to be insulting, maybe I made an incorrect assumption.
It wouldn't hurt it to have some love, but my other work keeps me busy. I've had ideas of things I would like to fix or extend, but not gotten around to it. So, no offense taken, it mostly just works for my purposes. robert. > The patch I saw in the bsd.port.mk was there in order to add in a couple of > Makefile variables, and that just seems a really odd method to use for that > purpose. I don't honestly know how portmanager works, so I couldn't give any > meaningful criticism, it just seemed so odd that I couldn't figure out the > goal > behind it. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iEYEARECAAYFAkm1z28ACgkQz62J6PPcoOlZNgCcC86aFuuz37IerQpV6Z081IPT > ZrwAnRXsUgaQFnxg8WrllnAEF6DvJagF > =7mON > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Robert Noland <rnol...@freebsd.org> FreeBSD
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
