Personalised patches in ports

[Roland Smith]

On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 09:06:45AM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> > Not if you 'chflags schg,sunlnk' it. 
> 
> If you add another file into a ports' files directory that cvsup knows
> nothing about, then cvsup will refuse to touch it.  No need for chflags
> in that case.  If you need to make local modifications to a file already
> in that directory, then yes, cvsup will replace it with the canonical
> version next time you update.
> 
> 'portsnap extract' or 'portsnap update' will however blow away local
> additions in the part of the ports tree it is operating on -- there are
> clear warnings to that effect in the man page.  chflags will preserve
> your changes in this case, but my guess is that portsnap might well 
> abort in the middle of what it's doing if it runs into an immutable file.

It hasn't aborted on me yet. But these days I tend to keep my own
patches separately, and re-apply them if necessary after a
portsnap. Just to make sure I don't screw things up. :-/

Having said that, I usually try to get changes accepted into the
official ports tree if possible. Saves a lot of hassle.

Roland
-- 
R.F.Smith                                   http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/
[plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated]
pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914  B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20071126/1e8a8f09/attachment.pgp