On 6 February 2011 14:55, Raphael Kubo da Costa <kub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris Rees <utis...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> + @${REINPLACE_CMD} -e '/return NULL/d' ${WRKSRC}/actor_projectM.cpp
>>>
>>> Is this one from upstream? If so, isn't it better to put it in files/?
>>
>> No, this is one I made. They've written a dummy function in, but it's
>> type struct * and tries to return NULL.
>
> Hmm, if it's a function with a return type other than void, it should
> return at least something.
>
>> I have a serious hatred of files/patch-*; they break with most
>> updates, they bloat the repository and make it slower for everyone to
>> csup as well. I thought that a ${REINPLACE_CMD} was a cleaner way of
>> doing so.
>
> To be honest (note I'm not a ports committer, so there might be reasons
> for this), I don't personally like the current way patches are added:
> it's better than when they were just called patch-aa and nobody would
> ever be able to know what their purpose was (the CVS log normally
> wouldn't help much), however it's still hard to tell when something was
> obtained from upstream or is something local, if upstream has been
> contacted about the patch or what exactly it is supposed to fix. Adding
> some notes about this in the file before the diff itself would certainly
> help a lot.
>After discussion on #bsdports, they agree with you. I've changed it to a patchfile, and removed the only reference to that function as well. It's a dummy call, anyway. Chris _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
