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
