one or more patch files / optional patch ?
eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com
Thu Feb 26 14:49:39 PST 2004
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:
>>>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) ?
> 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
or whatever naming convention you prefer. Another option is to check
if you could use sed to do the extra modifications. And if anything
else fails: sometimes you have to patch a file twice at a last resort.
More information about the freebsd-ports