On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 05:52:46PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
>> Personally, I thought that using PATCHFILES was always preferable to
>> adding normal ports patches. Apparently this is not the case, and in
>> cases where the changes are minor and affect a single file, 'normal ports
>> patches' in the 'patches' directory should be preferred?
>
>I would only use them if they were really complex to manage in the ports
>tree. If a file needs further changes it's simple to do it where patches
>are in the ports tree, and a pain if they're fetched from another source.
>
>In particular with the ones from github, they're subject to change if
>the software producing them changes, or if the shortform commit hash is
>lengthened (I've seen that before in ports).
>
...
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 05:45:51PM +0000, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> I also prefer automatically fetched patchfiles over in-tree maintained
> ones, but other porters may have good reasons to do it the other way
> around.
...
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 05:52:02PM +0000, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> Less files in-tree and maintaining them is usually easier.
> All the patch related work stays in whatever process I do to upstream
> them and our ports Makefile just needs the commit id replaced.
Thank you all for the clarification! I'll keep that in mind.
--
Wbr, Andrew Krasavin
No comments:
Post a Comment