Re: portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Doug Barton wrote: Chuck Robey wrote: Just before sending my mail, I took a look at the cvs log, last entry is from more than 6 months ago, unless something is somehow fubared with my archive. If it sits unchanged for so long, I interpreted that as being dead, I wasn't trying to be insulting, maybe I made an incorrect assumption. The last change to portmaster (minor bug fixes and one minor new feature) was just shy of 6 months after the previous change, but I assure you that it's very much alive. :) Just because an existing feature set is more or less mature doesn't mean that the project is dead. Doug Doug, we were speaking of portmanager, not portmaster (about which I'm utterly innocent). Being thjat this is ports, not -chat, I think we shouldn't just launch out at random (although I'd enjoy that personally.) If you want to continue this in any direction other than portmanager, maybe you could either move this to freebsd-chat, or make it private (no list in the CC:?) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkm2ncAACgkQz62J6PPcoOkgYgCfQuTfs7AlhYv7zcHBbM2ar2wP PzwAn0nIZh3IOqVM0IIInE3AOGTOg+y0 =lURE -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk
On March 10, 2009 10:05 am Chuck Robey wrote: Doug Barton wrote: Chuck Robey wrote: Just before sending my mail, I took a look at the cvs log, last entry is from more than 6 months ago, unless something is somehow fubared with my archive. If it sits unchanged for so long, I interpreted that as being dead, I wasn't trying to be insulting, maybe I made an incorrect assumption. The last change to portmaster (minor bug fixes and one minor new feature) was just shy of 6 months after the previous change, but I assure you that it's very much alive. :) Just because an existing feature set is more or less mature doesn't mean that the project is dead. Doug, we were speaking of portmanager, not portmaster (about which I'm utterly innocent). Being thjat this is ports, not -chat, I think we shouldn't just launch out at random (although I'd enjoy that personally.) If you want to continue this in any direction other than portmanager, maybe you could either move this to freebsd-chat, or make it private (no list in the CC:?) ___ I believe he was just trying to make the point that just because there hasn't been any patches posted in 6 months, doesn't mean a project is dead. Not trying to steer the conversation over to portmaster. -- Freddie fjwc...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk
Chuck Robey wrote: Doug, we were speaking of portmanager, not portmaster I realize that. I was simply attempting to support Robert's point. I could have used several other mature ports that I maintain as examples but I thought I'd try to stay as close to on topic as possible. My apologies if you feel I've wasted your time. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk
I think this was probably intended for the list rather than me: On Mar 8, 4:04 pm, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:40:08 -0400 Chuck Robey chu...@telenix.org wrote: Here's the portmanager listing, maybe someone here can tell me what's causing portmanager to want to patch my bsd.port.mk, and why the patchfile should be so far off, and what might be the CORRECT way to fix this. Oh, BTW, I run current, and keep myself that way via cvsup.. IIRC the patch was made so that when portmanager built a port, the makefile would call back into portmanager to let it modify the dependencies. Portmanager had a major rewrite just before the original author had a row with some FreeBSD people and abandoned the project. AFAIK the feature wasn't yet used, so it doesn't matter if the patch doesn't apply since it's a null operation. I'm the original author of portmanager, haven't done anything bsd related in a few years so memory is a bit vague. I think the patch was to correct a sorting problem with dependencies in freebsd make. I filed a pr against make and was assured there was no way it would ever approved so that patch is a work around. If it is failing, isn't really a big surprise, means something has changed in make finally. Best solution I guess is to determine if make was fixed somewhere along the line, maybey look up the pr i filed agains make? if its fixed now, then remove the patch, if not, then someone who understands scripts needs to recut the patch. I drive a semi for a living now and seriously doubt I'll ever take up programming again for lack of time, so very sorry I'm not able to provide more help with this problem. Mike Shultz ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 14:38 +, RW wrote: I think this was probably intended for the list rather than me: On Mar 8, 4:04 pm, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:40:08 -0400 Chuck Robey chu...@telenix.org wrote: Here's the portmanager listing, maybe someone here can tell me what's causing portmanager to want to patch my bsd.port.mk, and why the patchfile should be so far off, and what might be the CORRECT way to fix this. Oh, BTW, I run current, and keep myself that way via cvsup.. IIRC the patch was made so that when portmanager built a port, the makefile would call back into portmanager to let it modify the dependencies. Portmanager had a major rewrite just before the original author had a row with some FreeBSD people and abandoned the project. AFAIK the feature wasn't yet used, so it doesn't matter if the patch doesn't apply since it's a null operation. I'm the original author of portmanager, haven't done anything bsd related in a few years so memory is a bit vague. I think the patch was to correct a sorting problem with dependencies in freebsd make. I filed a pr against make and was assured there was no way it would ever approved so that patch is a work around. If it is failing, isn't really a big surprise, means something has changed in make finally. Best solution I guess is to determine if make was fixed somewhere along the line, maybey look up the pr i filed agains make? if its fixed now, then remove the patch, if not, then someone who understands scripts needs to recut the patch. I drive a semi for a living now and seriously doubt I'll ever take up programming again for lack of time, so very sorry I'm not able to provide more help with this problem. Mike, Thanks for the info. Yes, bsd.port.mk changed about a year or so ago now... portmanager still did what I needed it to do, so I just ignored it. I will try and find the old, PR and have a look. thanks, robert. Mike Shultz ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- Robert Noland rnol...@freebsd.org FreeBSD signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 RW wrote: On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:40:08 -0400 Chuck Robey chu...@telenix.org wrote: Here's the portmanager listing, maybe someone here can tell me what's causing portmanager to want to patch my bsd.port.mk, and why the patchfile should be so far off, and what might be the CORRECT way to fix this. Oh, BTW, I run current, and keep myself that way via cvsup. IIRC the patch was made so that when portmanager built a port, the makefile would call back into portmanager to let it modify the dependencies. Portmanager had a major rewrite just before the original author had a row with some FreeBSD people and abandoned the project. AFAIK the feature wasn't yet used, so it doesn't matter if the patch doesn't apply since it's a null operation. Ahh, I didn't realize that portmanager was moribund. OK, I can figure out what to do from here, then, thanks. I might not like the method being used by portmanager very much, but it's not worth complaining about a dead port. Too many other choices, aren't there? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkm1u6sACgkQz62J6PPcoOlcfQCgnXJkaeu1SOXMhcWxWhlVMQFc 9lcAni5kfl+jmQE1C3b6t0lQkdocH+HL =OTs8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 21:00 -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 RW wrote: On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:40:08 -0400 Chuck Robey chu...@telenix.org wrote: Here's the portmanager listing, maybe someone here can tell me what's causing portmanager to want to patch my bsd.port.mk, and why the patchfile should be so far off, and what might be the CORRECT way to fix this. Oh, BTW, I run current, and keep myself that way via cvsup. IIRC the patch was made so that when portmanager built a port, the makefile would call back into portmanager to let it modify the dependencies. Portmanager had a major rewrite just before the original author had a row with some FreeBSD people and abandoned the project. AFAIK the feature wasn't yet used, so it doesn't matter if the patch doesn't apply since it's a null operation. Ahh, I didn't realize that portmanager was moribund. OK, I can figure out what to do from here, then, thanks. I might not like the method being used by portmanager very much, but it's not worth complaining about a dead port. Too many other choices, aren't there? It's not exactly dead... I keep it running, because it is still the best available option. robert. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkm1u6sACgkQz62J6PPcoOlcfQCgnXJkaeu1SOXMhcWxWhlVMQFc 9lcAni5kfl+jmQE1C3b6t0lQkdocH+HL =OTs8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- Robert Noland rnol...@freebsd.org FreeBSD signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Noland wrote: On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 21:00 -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: RW wrote: On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:40:08 -0400 Chuck Robey chu...@telenix.org wrote: Here's the portmanager listing, maybe someone here can tell me what's causing portmanager to want to patch my bsd.port.mk, and why the patchfile should be so far off, and what might be the CORRECT way to fix this. Oh, BTW, I run current, and keep myself that way via cvsup. IIRC the patch was made so that when portmanager built a port, the makefile would call back into portmanager to let it modify the dependencies. Portmanager had a major rewrite just before the original author had a row with some FreeBSD people and abandoned the project. AFAIK the feature wasn't yet used, so it doesn't matter if the patch doesn't apply since it's a null operation. Ahh, I didn't realize that portmanager was moribund. OK, I can figure out what to do from here, then, thanks. I might not like the method being used by portmanager very much, but it's not worth complaining about a dead port. Too many other choices, aren't there? It's not exactly dead... I keep it running, because it is still the best available option. Just before sending my mail, I took a look at the cvs log, last entry is from more than 6 months ago, unless something is somehow fubared with my archive. If it sits unchanged for so long, I interpreted that as being dead, I wasn't trying to be insulting, maybe I made an incorrect assumption. The patch I saw in the bsd.port.mk was there in order to add in a couple of Makefile variables, and that just seems a really odd method to use for that purpose. I don't honestly know how portmanager works, so I couldn't give any meaningful criticism, it just seemed so odd that I couldn't figure out the goal behind it. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkm1z28ACgkQz62J6PPcoOlZNgCcC86aFuuz37IerQpV6Z081IPT ZrwAnRXsUgaQFnxg8WrllnAEF6DvJagF =7mON -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 22:24 -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Noland wrote: On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 21:00 -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: RW wrote: On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:40:08 -0400 Chuck Robey chu...@telenix.org wrote: Here's the portmanager listing, maybe someone here can tell me what's causing portmanager to want to patch my bsd.port.mk, and why the patchfile should be so far off, and what might be the CORRECT way to fix this. Oh, BTW, I run current, and keep myself that way via cvsup. IIRC the patch was made so that when portmanager built a port, the makefile would call back into portmanager to let it modify the dependencies. Portmanager had a major rewrite just before the original author had a row with some FreeBSD people and abandoned the project. AFAIK the feature wasn't yet used, so it doesn't matter if the patch doesn't apply since it's a null operation. Ahh, I didn't realize that portmanager was moribund. OK, I can figure out what to do from here, then, thanks. I might not like the method being used by portmanager very much, but it's not worth complaining about a dead port. Too many other choices, aren't there? It's not exactly dead... I keep it running, because it is still the best available option. Just before sending my mail, I took a look at the cvs log, last entry is from more than 6 months ago, unless something is somehow fubared with my archive. If it sits unchanged for so long, I interpreted that as being dead, I wasn't trying to be insulting, maybe I made an incorrect assumption. It wouldn't hurt it to have some love, but my other work keeps me busy. I've had ideas of things I would like to fix or extend, but not gotten around to it. So, no offense taken, it mostly just works for my purposes. robert. The patch I saw in the bsd.port.mk was there in order to add in a couple of Makefile variables, and that just seems a really odd method to use for that purpose. I don't honestly know how portmanager works, so I couldn't give any meaningful criticism, it just seemed so odd that I couldn't figure out the goal behind it. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkm1z28ACgkQz62J6PPcoOlZNgCcC86aFuuz37IerQpV6Z081IPT ZrwAnRXsUgaQFnxg8WrllnAEF6DvJagF =7mON -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Robert Noland rnol...@freebsd.org FreeBSD signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk
Chuck Robey wrote: Just before sending my mail, I took a look at the cvs log, last entry is from more than 6 months ago, unless something is somehow fubared with my archive. If it sits unchanged for so long, I interpreted that as being dead, I wasn't trying to be insulting, maybe I made an incorrect assumption. The last change to portmaster (minor bug fixes and one minor new feature) was just shy of 6 months after the previous change, but I assure you that it's very much alive. :) Just because an existing feature set is more or less mature doesn't mean that the project is dead. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm busy trying to use portmanager to get me to kde4.2, but I'm having problem in updating my misc/localedata port. Portmanager has decided misc/localedata needs to get rebuilt, and for some reason, that it needs to patch my /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port/mk file with the patchfile /usr/local/share/portmanager/patch-bsd.port.mk-0.3.6. I can't figure out why portmanager thinks that misc/localedata needs updating, but I much much worse, can't figure out why it needs to patch my /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port/mk file. I checked the patchfile I listed above, the patch seems fine BUT it's off in terms of line number, it wants to patch around the line 2049, but in searching my bsd.port.mk, it should really be looking to patch about line 2347. I could go about fixing this, but seeing as I don't know why it's patching things to begin with, I feel really unsafe in changing the patchfile. I did make sure that the patchfile was totally up-to-date, and that my bsd.port.mk is also up-to-date. Here's the portmanager listing, maybe someone here can tell me what's causing portmanager to want to patch my bsd.port.mk, and why the patchfile should be so far off, and what might be the CORRECT way to fix this. Oh, BTW, I run current, and keep myself that way via cvsup. If you tell me I should just fix the patchfile, I know how to do that, I just feel uneasy when I have no idea of the context involved. I think this exact same probolme is actually (probably) occurring in several other points in my kde4.2 build, so I really need to understand the reason it's trying to patch to begin with, and why things are out of sync. +++ FROM the portmanager listing +++ TCSH-april:root:/usr/ports/lang:#44-19:26portmanager misc/localedata -f -l MGPMrController 0.4.1_9 info: running in forced update mode rCreateInstalledDbVerifyContentsFile 0.4.1_9 error: @name not found in /var/db/pkg/convertall-0.4.0/+CONTENTS convertall-0.4.0 installation is corrupt! recomend running pkg_delete -f convertall-0.4.0 then manually reinstalling this port rCreateInstalledDbVerifyContentsFile 0.4.1_9 error: @name not found in /var/db/pkg/convertall-0.4.0/+CONTENTS convertall-0.4.0 installation is corrupt! recomend running pkg_delete -f convertall-0.4.0 then manually reinstalling this port - portmanager 0.4.1_9: Collecting installed port data forced mode - - -0001 localedata-5.4 /misc/localedata rCreateInstalledDbVerifyContentsFile 0.4.1_9 error: @name not found in /var/db/pkg/convertall-0.4.0/+CONTENTS convertall-0.4.0 installation is corrupt! recomend running pkg_delete -f convertall-0.4.0 then manually reinstalling this port - Port Status Report forced mode - 1 :localedata-5.4 /misc/localedata MISSING updating localedata-5.4 /misc/localedata options reason: MISSING localedata-5.4 /misc/localedata - percentDone-=0 = 100 - ( 100 * ( oldPortsDbQTY-=1 / oldPortsDbTOTALIZER-=1 ) ) patching bsd.port.mk-=cd /usr/ports/Mk; patch /usr/local/share/portmanager/patch-bsd.port.mk-0.3.6; Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: - -- |--- /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk Tue Nov 8 01:02:51 2005 |+++ bsd.port.mkWed Nov 16 02:16:57 2005 - -- Patching file bsd.port.mk using Plan A... Hunk #1 failed at 2049. 1 out of 1 hunks failed--saving rejects to bsd.port.mk.rej done - MGPMrUpdate 0.4.1_9 command: #1 of 14 cd /usr/ports/misc/localedata make -V OPTIONS - - checking for conflicts before building localedata-5.4 MGPMrUpdate 0.4.1_9 command: #3 of 14 cd /usr/ports/misc/localedata make check-conflicts - - intitial clean of work directories MGPMrUpdate 0.4.1_9 command: #7 of 14: - After this point, the stuff above repeats 2 more times, until it announces that it's failed 3 times, and quitting. No additional info, no idea why it's doing that patching to begin with. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD)
Re: portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 14:40 -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm busy trying to use portmanager to get me to kde4.2, but I'm having problem in updating my misc/localedata port. Portmanager has decided misc/localedata needs to get rebuilt, and for some reason, that it needs to patch my /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port/mk file with the patchfile /usr/local/share/portmanager/patch-bsd.port.mk-0.3.6. I can't figure out why portmanager thinks that misc/localedata needs updating, but I much much worse, can't figure out why it needs to patch my /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port/mk file. I checked the patchfile I listed above, the patch seems fine BUT it's off in terms of line number, it wants to patch around the line 2049, but in searching my bsd.port.mk, it should really be looking to patch about line 2347. I could go about fixing this, but seeing as I don't know why it's patching things to begin with, I feel really unsafe in changing the patchfile. This has failed for a really long time... I should fix it someday, but it really doesn't cause any harm that I've seen. I normally always use portmanager -u -p -l -y and it continues to dtrt. I did make sure that the patchfile was totally up-to-date, and that my bsd.port.mk is also up-to-date. Here's the portmanager listing, maybe someone here can tell me what's causing portmanager to want to patch my bsd.port.mk, and why the patchfile should be so far off, and what might be the CORRECT way to fix this. Oh, BTW, I run current, and keep myself that way via cvsup. If you tell me I should just fix the patchfile, I know how to do that, I just feel uneasy when I have no idea of the context involved. I think this exact same probolme is actually (probably) occurring in several other points in my kde4.2 build, so I really need to understand the reason it's trying to patch to begin with, and why things are out of sync. +++ FROM the portmanager listing +++ TCSH-april:root:/usr/ports/lang:#44-19:26portmanager misc/localedata -f -l MGPMrController 0.4.1_9 info: running in forced update mode rCreateInstalledDbVerifyContentsFile 0.4.1_9 error: @name not found in /var/db/pkg/convertall-0.4.0/+CONTENTS convertall-0.4.0 installation is corrupt! recomend running pkg_delete -f convertall-0.4.0 then manually reinstalling this port rCreateInstalledDbVerifyContentsFile 0.4.1_9 error: @name not found in /var/db/pkg/convertall-0.4.0/+CONTENTS convertall-0.4.0 installation is corrupt! recomend running pkg_delete -f convertall-0.4.0 then manually reinstalling this port This error seems pretty clear, what did I miss? robert. - portmanager 0.4.1_9: Collecting installed port data forced mode - - -0001 localedata-5.4 /misc/localedata rCreateInstalledDbVerifyContentsFile 0.4.1_9 error: @name not found in /var/db/pkg/convertall-0.4.0/+CONTENTS convertall-0.4.0 installation is corrupt! recomend running pkg_delete -f convertall-0.4.0 then manually reinstalling this port - Port Status Report forced mode - 1 :localedata-5.4 /misc/localedata MISSING updating localedata-5.4 /misc/localedata options reason: MISSING localedata-5.4 /misc/localedata - percentDone-=0 = 100 - ( 100 * ( oldPortsDbQTY-=1 / oldPortsDbTOTALIZER-=1 ) ) patching bsd.port.mk-=cd /usr/ports/Mk; patch /usr/local/share/portmanager/patch-bsd.port.mk-0.3.6; Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: - -- |--- /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk Tue Nov 8 01:02:51 2005 |+++ bsd.port.mkWed Nov 16 02:16:57 2005 - -- Patching file bsd.port.mk using Plan A... Hunk #1 failed at 2049. 1 out of 1 hunks failed--saving rejects to bsd.port.mk.rej done - MGPMrUpdate 0.4.1_9 command: #1 of 14 cd /usr/ports/misc/localedata make -V OPTIONS - - checking for conflicts before building localedata-5.4 MGPMrUpdate 0.4.1_9 command: #3 of 14 cd /usr/ports/misc/localedata make check-conflicts - -
Re: portmanager modifying bsd.port.mk
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:40:08 -0400 Chuck Robey chu...@telenix.org wrote: Here's the portmanager listing, maybe someone here can tell me what's causing portmanager to want to patch my bsd.port.mk, and why the patchfile should be so far off, and what might be the CORRECT way to fix this. Oh, BTW, I run current, and keep myself that way via cvsup. IIRC the patch was made so that when portmanager built a port, the makefile would call back into portmanager to let it modify the dependencies. Portmanager had a major rewrite just before the original author had a row with some FreeBSD people and abandoned the project. AFAIK the feature wasn't yet used, so it doesn't matter if the patch doesn't apply since it's a null operation. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
