Mysterious patches

[Brooks Davis]

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:47:54PM +0100, A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven wrote:
> Henry Hu wrote:
> 
> > They apply to src/raster-png.cxx and src/raster.cxx
> 
> Note to self: look inside the actual patch files themselves, it says right
> there which files they apply to *oops*.
> 
> However, this does leave me puzzled about the file names. If a patch
> applies to, say, src/foo/bar.c, shouldn't it be called
> files/patch-src__foo__bar.c? This is how it's described in the Porter's
> Handbook. Given a filename such as files/patch-png.cxx I would expect that
> patch to apply to a file ${WRKDIR}/png.cxx.
> 
> What am I misunderstanding here?

The rule hasn't been around forever.  It's also inappropriate for some
types of patches that apply to multiple files and might be removed
later.  The warning patch is a boarderline example of the latter, but I
use the pattern in the clang and llvm ports for patches pulled from the
upstream svn repo.

New ports should follow the rule where it makes sense, but renaming
files used to be annoyingly expensive so older ports were typically left
alone.

-- Brooks
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 326 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20140328/dc6ec94a/attachment.sig>