From: uk1o@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
To: imp@harmony.village.org (Warner Losh)
Subject: Re: CVS: cvs.openbsd.org: ports
In-Reply-To: <199709181910.NAA20539@harmony.village.org>
Message-ID: <199710151308.HAA03190@mroe.cs.colorado.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Hello!

[older mail]

According to Warner Losh:
> In message <199709160731.JAA11130@waldorf.appli.se> Niklas Hallqvist writes:
> : To people with commit access: committing to ports won't work, it's a
> : sup mirror where files will get overwritten.  Instead discuss changes
> : on ports@ and when good, mail to imp@ with explanations for
> : consideration of including into FreeBSD.

> This particular patch was committed to the FreeBSD tree last night.

> I do think that there will come a time when OpenBSD needs to have its
> own ports tree.  95% of this tree could be a mirror of the FreeBSD,
> but there are some interesting issues that need to be resolved that
> haven't been (like the libcrypt issues).

How about suggesting a make variable HAS_LIBCRYPT to the FreeBSD people?
We could set it in <bsd.own.mk> or something like this (to a value
meaning "we don't have it and we don't need it either), and FreeBSD could
do similar.

Another way were patching the third party program's Makefile accordingly.
We should introduce a patches-${OPSYS} directory having precedence before
the patches directory of a port. Thus we could maintain our special patches
for ports which need them while continuing to use the FreeBSD ports where
they work out of the box. I see now that this is already implemented in
<bsd.port.mk>, so we could just USE that.

> Warner

Regards, Felix.