Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 20:35:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Trevor Johnson <trevor@freebsd.org> To: Pete Fritchman <petef@freebsd.org> Cc: <cvs-committers@freebsd.org>, <cvs-all@freebsd.org>, Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/shells/ksh93 Makefile distinfo pkg-plist Message-ID: <20010831193809.L96213-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200108310556.f7V5uWb41842@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> petef 2001/08/30 22:56:32 PDT > > Modified files: > shells/ksh93 Makefile distinfo pkg-plist > Log: > - remove DIST_SUBDIR [...] > Submitted by: maintainer This port is named ksh93, yet its distfiles are called INIT.2001-01-01.0000.tgz and ast-ksh.2001-01-01.0000.tgz, I believe that without the DIST_SUBDIR, this can cause confusion for a user who wishes to remove some distfiles without resorting to "the mythical rm star". Although it isn't mentioned in the Handbook, I consider distfiles with names that have little relationship to the name of the port to be a form of clutter. When I discussed this with the maintainer, he pointed out that INIT.2001-01-01.0000.tgz would be needed for ports of the other "ast" software, and having it under a ksh93/ directory would be unsuitable if it were needed by the other ports. My response was that if such ports are made, having a separate ast-init port, on which they would all depend, would be the most desirable arrangement. Christian, if you have no objection to the DIST_SUBDIR besides the (still nonexistent) other "ast" ports, could you allow yourself to be convinced that it is useful? Is my idea that someone would want to selectively tidy up distfiles just totally whacked? Best regards. -- Trevor Johnson To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010831193809.L96213-100000>