From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 27 21:30:19 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2699716A410; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 21:30:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from itetcu@people.tecnik93.com) Received: from it.buh.tecnik93.com (it.buh.tecnik93.com [81.196.204.98]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35A2543D7B; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 21:30:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from itetcu@people.tecnik93.com) Received: from it.buh.tecnik93.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by it.buh.tecnik93.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 833FD1765D; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:30:08 +0300 (EEST) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:30:08 +0300 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu To: "Andrew Pantyukhin" Message-ID: <20060428003008.19f61dbc@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: References: <127FEBDA-4446-47DB-B6CA-4AB6A5CE8562@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.1.1 (GTK+ 2.8.17; i386-portbld-freebsd6.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Ports , Sam Lawrance Subject: Re: sourceforge subdir default X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 21:30:19 -0000 On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:27:38 +0400 "Andrew Pantyukhin" wrote: > On 2/18/06, Sam Lawrance wrote: > > > > On 18/02/2006, at 8:12 PM, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > > > > I wonder if we can set MASTER_SITE_SUBDIR to > > > PORTNAME by default when MASTER_SITES is > > > equal to MASTER_SITE_SOURCEFORGE or > > > M_S_SF_EXTENDED? We don't have to take care > > > of ':whatever', just handle the simplest case - and > > > it will save hundreds of lines. > > > > How? > > Okay, I wonder if we can set M_S_SUBDIR to PORTNAME > by default no matter what MASTER_SITES we have. I mean > if there's a %SUBDIR% to replace, PORTNAME seems to be > a reasonable default value, doesn't it? I've been thinking about the same thing for some time. Care to provide: a) patch for b.p.m b) patch for affected ports where this is true ( c) the rest of M_S_SF ports should work w/o modifications ) ? I'll do a test for all the affected ports. -- IOnut - Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" BOFH excuse #10: hardware stress fractures