From owner-freebsd-current Sun Aug 3 11:04:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA05543 for current-outgoing; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 11:04:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hwcn.org (main.hwcn.org [199.212.94.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA05535 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 11:04:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (ac199@james.hwcn.org [199.212.94.66]) by hwcn.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA10914; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 14:05:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (ac199@localhost) by james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA11212; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 14:05:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca: ac199 owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 14:05:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek X-Sender: ac199@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca Reply-To: hoek@hwcn.org To: David Nugent cc: hoek@hwcn.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued In-Reply-To: <199708030414.OAA20765@unique.usn.blaze.net.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, David Nugent wrote: > Doesn't a symbolic link from /usr/ports/distfiles to the CDROM work? > This is admittedly problematic if you keep your ports tree up to > date, but it's a reasonable workaround I've used occasionally. :) We have to keep all the unnecessary bytes off the user's hdd. If, during sysinstall-time, I'm grabbing the distfile from the ftp.freebsd.org, I don't want it sitting in /usr/ports/distfiles. I want it to be expanded, and thrown into the appropriate source directory, where it will get rebuilt the next time ``make world'' is run. BTW, it shouldn't be necessary to symlink /usr/ports/distfiles to /cdrom anymore. If you use MASTER_SITE_OVERRIDE, fetch(1) will recognize the file:// url and make a symlink from /usr/ports/distfiles/mydist.hqx to /cdrom/mydist.hqx. (Or, at least, it should. :) -- Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! tIM...HOEk