Proposal: mechanism for local patches

RW fbsd06 at
Tue Dec 2 18:24:46 PST 2008

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 21:07:43 +0300
Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3 at> wrote:

> I am not aware of any mechanism for this. But I agree that it's
> really needed. Before (in cvsup times) we could just place patches
> under files/ and be happy, but now when more people use portsnap
> we need something better.

I wonder if portsnap actually needs to behave the way it does.

Portsnap stores its compressed snapshot as one .gz file for each
port plus one for each additional file (files in Mk/ etc). When you
do an "update" any modified snapshot files are extracted over
the appropriate location in the ports tree. 

The reason that "portsnap extract" deletes patch-files is that before
each .gz file is extracted, the corresponding file or port directory is
deleted. I wonder why, if an "update" can decompress over the top of a
port, an "extract" need to delete it first. I can't think of any good
reason offhand.

Modifying portsnap not to delete extra files is just a matter of
deleting one line. The behaviour of portsnap extract would then be
virtually identical to csup. Alternately, it wouldn't be much harder to
create a new portsnap command.

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list