Re: CVS: cvs.openbsd.org: ports

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.

On Wednesday, October 15, uk1o@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de wrote:
>
> 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.

I've already made a similar message to the ports list.  It was shot down.
But maybe now that we see the "trouble" with the current setup, we can
re-evaluate that.  Personally, I think we could share 95% of the ports
stuff between open/freebsd, but it would be nice to have the ability to
fix things in a local cvs tree, without having to wait for the fix to go
through channels.


--Toby.
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Tobias Weingartner | Email: weingart@BrandonU.Ca | Need a Unix sys-admin?  |
| 6B-1137 Lorne Ave. |-----------------------------| Send E-Mail for resume, |
| Brandon, Canada    | Unix Guru? Admin, Sys-Prgmr | and other details...    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|      %SYSTEM-F-ANARCHISM, The operating system has been overthrown         |
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*

In message <14196.876929326@natasha.brandonu.ca> Tobias Weingartner writes:
: I've already made a similar message to the ports list.  It was shot down.
: But maybe now that we see the "trouble" with the current setup, we can
: re-evaluate that.  Personally, I think we could share 95% of the ports
: stuff between open/freebsd, but it would be nice to have the ability to
: fix things in a local cvs tree, without having to wait for the fix to go
: through channels.

I would like to support this 100%.  This would also help with the
-lcrypt problem, et al.

Recall that bsd.port.mk already supports this.  We can start doing it
right away...

Warner