Third "RFC" on on pkg-data ideas for ports

["." at babolo.ru]

> At 5:26 PM +0200 5/24/04, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
> >* Garance A Drosihn <drosih at rpi.edu> [2004-05-24 00:07 -0400]:
> >>  The third proposal is basically:
> >>      a) move most "standard" files into a new pkg-data
> >>         file, as described in previous proposals, except
> >>         for pkg-descr and "patch" files.
> >>      b) create a new directory at the root directory of
> >>         the ports collection.  That directory would be
> >>         called "Patches", and inside would be a directory
> >>         for each category.  Inside each Patches/category
> >>         directory would be a single-file for each port
> >>         in that category, where that single-file would
> >>         have all the "ports-collection patches" for the
> >>         matching port.
> >
> >I hoep I haven't missed something obvious, but what about local
> >patches and Makefile.local? Will they continue to work?
> 
> Makefile.local should work as well as it currently does.
> 
> I do agree that whatever is done, any major changes will have to
> continue to support local patches.  We haven't written any of the
> patch-processing code yet so I can't say this is implemented,
> but it is an item on our checklist of things we must do.
Local patches:
PR ports/45200

Or more correct http://free.babolo.ru/patch/ports.Mk.port.mk.patch
(part of)