m...@freebsd.org (Marcus von Appen) writes:
>Julian Elischer <jul...@freebsd.org>:
>[...]
>> esac | ${PATCH} ${PATCH_DIST_ARGS} `patch_dist_strip $$i` ; \
>> done )
>> .endif
>> +.if defined(EXTRA_PATCH_TREE)
>[...]
>> +.endif
>> .if defined(EXTRA_PATCHES)
>> @set -e ; \
>> for i in ${EXTRA_PATCHES}; do \
>>
>>
>> ============
>Nice. I'd however change the patch behaviour to the following:
>- patch-* from FreeBSD
>- EXTRA_PATCHES from FreeBSD
>- local patches
>Your patch looks like it appleis the out-of-tree patches prior
>to any EXTRA_PATCHES defined by the port itself. This should not be
>the case, in my opinion. Locally managed patches should always come
>last to ensure that all FreeBSD/maintainer-specific bits have been
>applied and the local changes are just added on top of those.
Julian and others, I am wholly in favor of this capability. I have
been using a similar bsd.port.mk patch for some years based on
the discussions in this thread:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2008-December/051767.html
I also agree with Marcus above regarding the order of application of patches.
Looking forward to its inclusion in the ports tree.
--
G. Paul Ziemba
FreeBSD unix:
1:16PM up 13 days, 12:51, 5 users, load averages: 1.36, 1.08, 0.97
_______________________________________________
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"
