one or more patch files / optional patch ?

[Ion-Mihai Tetcu]

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.


-- 
IOnut
Unregistered ;) FreeBSD user