Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 21:34:32 +0300 (EET DST) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Stefan Esser <se@zpr.uni-koeln.de> Cc: andreas@klemm.gtn.com, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/print/ghostscript4 Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960730212856.2694D-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <199607301822.UAA23117@x14.mi.uni-koeln.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Stefan Esser wrote: > narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee writes: > > > > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Stefan Esser wrote: > > [snip] > > > > Problems like this should be real easily fixable - or will something more > > than the number in the filename have to change in the makefile? > > Sure. But what I meant to say was, that if only > the name of a distribution files changes, then > we should generally keep the old name in the > port's Makefile, in order to reduce unneccesary > multi-megabyte FTP transfers. > Just what I meant - the situation can be changed (that is multi-megabyte transfer avoided) by minute changes to the existing (and future) ports. I can see no way why the ports maintainer should or could object to it other than in the cases when the file with the old name is no more present on the ftp sites (instead of linking, the old file is renamed). > A note might be required in the Makefile, which > indicates that the TAR file remains unchanged > and thus the version from the previous release > will still be used ... All such things *should* be corrected. At least for the future ports. Ok, this goes as IMHO, but I really can't see any counterarguments to it on the moment other than swelling the size of the distfiles directory. Sander > > Regards, STefan >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960730212856.2694D-100000>