one or more patch files / optional patch ?

[Ion-Mihai Tetcu]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:49:31 +0100
Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com> wrote:

> Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:25:36 -0800
> > Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org> wrote:
> > 
> >>On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:23:58PM +0200, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> >>>The Porters Handbook says "To make fixes and upgrades easier, you
> >>>should avoid having more than one patch fix the same file"; I'm in
> >>>the reverse situation, e.g. I have to patch 4 files for adding a
> >>>feature to a port. It will only make sense to patch all the files
> >or>>none. Should the patch be split in 4 files or not ?
> >>
> >>Yes, I think this is also documented in the porter's handbook.  It's
> >a>real pain in the ass to update patches when there's more than one
> >>patch per file.
> >>
> >>>I also want to use OPTIONS to allow the user to choose if he wants
> >>>this feature or not. How can I integrate this with patch target
> >>>(e.g. having the patch in files/ but only applied if WITH_ is set)
> >?>
> >>EXTRA_PATCHES
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure enough of my english. So I
> > name them extrapatch-feature_name-file_name and they are applied
> > only if I have them in EXTRA_PATCHES. OK, but what if there is a
> > regular patch that applies to one of the files also modified by one
> > of my extra_patches ? Since the "regular" patch is applied after the
> > extras, will it still work ? I could include them in my patches, but
> > I see no way in bsd.port.mk not to apply them.
> 
> one way would be to do
> 
> .if defined(WITH_A)
> EXTRA_PATCHES+=	extrapatch-path::file::with_a
> .else
> EXTRA_PATCHES+=	extrapatch-path::file::without_a
> .endif

Yes, of course.

Sorry, I'm after a share-holders meeting and my brain seems to have
suffer some damages ;-/



-- 
IOnut
Unregistered ;) FreeBSD user