Re: workflow for managing ports pat ches against /usr/ports in poudriere
Cy Schubert <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.freebsd.devel.hackers |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I rebase main onto my branch which contains local patches. Simple and effective. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <[email protected]> FreeBSD UNIX: <[email protected]> Web: https://FreeBSD.org NTP: <[email protected]> Web: https://nwtime.org e^(i*pi)+1=0 Pardon the typos. Tiny keyboard in use. On March 27, 2026 8:45:03 a.m. PDT, void <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, > >On IRC I've been advised to use overlays for this. >So let's say there's a port and the patches for it aren't in the tree. >I download a fresh ports tree, null mount it and make that my overlay tree. >Then strip out all the ports I don't want to patch, then patch the port in the >overlay. > >Then > >poudriere bulk -j builder -p /usr/ports -O overlay category/patched-port > >is this correct? Or is the patch just put somewhere in the overlay tree? >Or is there some documentation explaining exactly what to do? >I have around five or so ports needing patches and the patches aren't in the >official tree yet. > >The problem the above seeks to address is that, if /usr/ports is directly patched, >when the time comes to update the tree, git pull --ff-only complains. >Unless it's stashed then updated then un-stashed. >-- >