Thank you and Stuart for help. Everything is fine after upgrading
to the current version.
On 30/03, Thomas Frohwein wrote:
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 10:31:31AM +0300, Anton Konyahin wrote:
[...]
But make ignores files with .orig.port postfix, patches appears
only for just .orig. In man bsd.port.m
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 10:31:31AM +0300, Anton Konyahin wrote:
[...]
> But make ignores files with .orig.port postfix, patches appears
> only for just .orig. In man bsd.port.mk we also have only .orig postfix.
> apropos .orig.port shows nothing.
[...]
make sure you have a recent checkout from -cu
going through Porting Guide[1].
It has a example about making patches:
cd `make show=WRKSRC` ; cp foo/bar.c{,.orig.port}
edit foo/bar.c to fix the error.
cd - ; make update-patches
this will create patches/patch-foo_bar_c with your modifications.
But make ignores files with .orig.port postfix, pa
Hello.
I try to make my first port and going through Porting Guide[1].
It has a example about making patches:
cd `make show=WRKSRC` ; cp foo/bar.c{,.orig.port}
edit foo/bar.c to fix the error.
cd - ; make update-patches
this will create patches/patch-foo_bar_c with your modifications.
But
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 11:51:38PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:12:38PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2022/02/28 19:02, Marc Espie wrote:
> > > This kills both the generation and copying of $OpenBSD$ lines in
> > > update-patches.
&g
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:12:38PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2022/02/28 19:02, Marc Espie wrote:
> > This kills both the generation and copying of $OpenBSD$ lines in
> > update-patches.
> >
> > Main question is: are we okay generatin patches starting with
On 2022/02/28 19:02, Marc Espie wrote:
> This kills both the generation and copying of $OpenBSD$ lines in
> update-patches.
>
> Main question is: are we okay generatin patches starting with Index: or
> do we want to leave an empty line (or something) reminding people to add
>
This kills both the generation and copying of $OpenBSD$ lines in update-patches.
Main question is: are we okay generatin patches starting with Index: or
do we want to leave an empty line (or something) reminding people to add
an actual comment
(that's the first chunk of the patch)
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 13:43:57 +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 10:06:34PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2020/04/19 19:54, f.holop wrote:
> > > hello,
> > >
> > > i don't have experience with go ports and i cannot seem to have
&g
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 10:06:34PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2020/04/19 19:54, f.holop wrote:
> > hello,
> >
> > i don't have experience with go ports and i cannot seem to have
> > `make update-patches` work on this go project:
>
> It is not ideal
On 2020/04/19 19:54, f.holop wrote:
> hello,
>
> i don't have experience with go ports and i cannot seem to have
> `make update-patches` work on this go project:
It is not ideal at present. The directory layout isn't put into place
until "make build" starts runn
"f.holop" writes:
> hello,
>
> i don't have experience with go ports and i cannot seem to have
> `make update-patches` work on this go project:
>
> ~/ports/sysutils/fzf$ make update-patches
> WRKDIST=/home/g/src/ports/pobj/fzf-0.21.1/fzf-0.21.1 does not exis
hello,
i don't have experience with go ports and i cannot seem to have
`make update-patches` work on this go project:
~/ports/sysutils/fzf$ make update-patches
WRKDIST=/home/g/src/ports/pobj/fzf-0.21.1/fzf-0.21.1 does not exist
*** Error 1 in /home/g/src/ports/sysutils/fzf
(/home/g/src/
*did* manage to get applied.
Fair enough,thanks. I probably never ran into this because I either try
fixing patches before running `update-patches' or move them aside to
clean, apply and fix them one by one.
As for the alias, that's what I wanted to avoid. I'd prefer our
fra
applied.
>
> > Basically, I expected this dependency when updating a port but was
> > mistaken:
> >
> > $ make extract
> > [...]
> > $ make update-patches
> > WRKDIST=/usr/ports/pobj/git-2.22.0/git-2.22.0 does not exist
> > ***
g a port but was
> mistaken:
>
> $ make extract
> [...]
> $ make update-patches
> WRKDIST=/usr/ports/pobj/git-2.22.0/git-2.22.0 does not exist
> *** Error 1 in /usr/ports/devel/git
> (/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk:2467 'update-patche
Logically obvious to me; any reasons not to do it?
Basically, I expected this dependency when updating a port but was
mistaken:
$ make extract
[...]
$ make update-patches
WRKDIST=/usr/ports/pobj/git-2.22.0/git-2.22.0 does not exist
*** Error 1 in /usr
n below?
>>
>> if [ -n "$$toedit" ] && [ "${EDIT_PATCHES:L}" != no ]; then
> Sure.
>
>> > +.It Ev EDIT_PATCHES
>> > +User settings.
>> > +If set to
>> > +.Sq \&No ,
>> > +.Cm update-patches
>> > +wil
!= no ]; then
Sure.
> > +.It Ev EDIT_PATCHES
> > +User settings.
> > +If set to
> > +.Sq \&No ,
> > +.Cm update-patches
> > +will not open changed files in an editor.
>
> Nitpicking, what about adding "Defaults to 'Yes'"?
Since the current b
f -u -p -r1.1414 bsd.port.mk
> --- bsd.port.mk 4 Jun 2018 06:14:56 - 1.1414
> +++ bsd.port.mk 10 Jun 2018 11:43:47 -
> @@ -128,6 +128,7 @@ _ALL_VARIABLES_INDEXED += COMMENT PKGNAM
> .endif
>
> PATCH_CHECK_ONLY ?= No
> +EDIT_PATCHES ?=
Should be
EDIT
More feedback or OKs for that diff?
k
--- bsd.port.mk 4 Jun 2018 06:14:56 - 1.1414
+++ bsd.port.mk 10 Jun 2018 11:43:47 -
@@ -128,6 +128,7 @@ _ALL_VARIABLES_INDEXED += COMMENT PKGNAM
.endif
PATCH_CHECK_ONLY ?= No
+EDIT_PATCHES ?=
REFETCH ?= false
PORTROACH ?=
@@ -2362,11 +2363,9 @@ update-patches:
P
8 06:14:56 - 1.1414
> +++ bsd.port.mk 10 Jun 2018 10:02:13 -
> @@ -2362,11 +2362,9 @@ update-patches:
> PATCH_LIST='${PATCH_LIST}' DIFF_ARGS='${DIFF_ARGS}' \
> DISTORIG=${DISTORIG} PATCHORIG=${PATCHORIG} \
>
.1414 bsd.port.mk
--- bsd.port.mk 4 Jun 2018 06:14:56 - 1.1414
+++ bsd.port.mk 10 Jun 2018 10:02:13 -
@@ -2362,11 +2362,9 @@ update-patches:
PATCH_LIST='${PATCH_LIST}' DIFF_ARGS='${DIFF_ARGS}' \
DISTORIG=${DISTORIG} PATCHORIG=${PATCHORIG} \
Thinking about it again, I'd prefer no prompt at all. A simple user
setting `EDIT_PATCHES' that can be set to "No" does the job.
Here's a new diff introducing that knob.
While here, I dropped the redundant and too specific explanation about
patch files' names
> RCS file: /cvs/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk,v
> retrieving revision 1.1414
> diff -u -p -r1.1414 bsd.port.mk
> --- bsd.port.mk 4 Jun 2018 06:14:56 - 1.1414
> +++ bsd.port.mk 8 Jun 2018 22:30:32 -
> @@ -2362,11 +2362,12 @@ update-p
-u -p -r1.1414 bsd.port.mk
--- bsd.port.mk 4 Jun 2018 06:14:56 - 1.1414
+++ bsd.port.mk 8 Jun 2018 22:30:32 -
@@ -2362,11 +2362,12 @@ update-patches:
PATCH_LIST='${PATCH_LIST}' DIFF_ARGS='${DIFF_ARGS}' \
DISTORIG=${DISTORIG} PA
On Fri, Jun 08 2018, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> The following diff makes `update-patches' ask for 'y' or 'N', accept
> nothing but 'y' as valid confirmation to open the editor and exit
> cleanly otherwise.
>
> Current behaviour is to prompt a
The following diff makes `update-patches' ask for 'y' or 'N', accept
nothing but 'y' as valid confirmation to open the editor and exit
cleanly otherwise.
Current behaviour is to prompt anything out of the blue and treat every
reply as confirmation to run an edit
If you don't follow ports-changes, you may not have noticed that I've
finally given up and completely replaced update-patches with perl code.
This allowed me to implement several improvements.
- instead of diffing file.orig and file, if update-patches finds a
file.beforesubst, it
5 нояб. 2016 г. 15:11 пользователь "Rafael Sadowski"
написал:
>
> Hi ports@,
>
> I'm working with x11/qt5 port and I realized outdated patches.
Yes, I've skipped those nonfunctional updates to lower the noise level of
qt5 update.
REVISION bumps are not needed, as it was already mentioned.
> Kin
On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 13:10:35 +0100, Rafael Sadowski
wrote:
> I'm working with x11/qt5 port and I realized outdated patches.
As it doesn't change the package, REVISION bumps are not needed. See
for instance:
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports-cvs&m=147762719016515&w=2
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd
Hi ports@,
I'm working with x11/qt5 port and I realized outdated patches.
Kind regards,
Rafael
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/x11/qt5/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.54
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.54 Makefile
--- Makefile23
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:34:06AM -0700, Ryan Freeman wrote:
> i hope i don't get tarred and feathered for posting this here, but i just
> thought i'd share how nice you can make an openbsd workstation look these
> days. the following shots show openbox 3.4.11.1, tint2, conky, and
> netwmpager whi
i hope i don't get tarred and feathered for posting this here, but i just
thought i'd share how nice you can make an openbsd workstation look these
days. the following shots show openbox 3.4.11.1, tint2, conky, and
netwmpager which isn't in ports but i'll do one up this week.
http://ryan.slipgate
35 matches
Mail list logo
