Date: 10 Dec 1999 17:31:21 -0800 From: asami@freebsd.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) To: Andre Albsmeier <andre.albsmeier@mchp.siemens.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How about using DIST_SUBDIR for ports w multiple files (StarOffice5) Message-ID: <vqcso1a6z6e.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: Andre Albsmeier's message of "Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:53:16 %2B0100" References: <19991210175316.A17711@internal>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* From: Andre Albsmeier <andre.albsmeier@mchp.siemens.de>
* I got one suggestion: How about putting all the Staroffice
* related files in a separate directory and not in ${DISTDIR}
* directly? I think this is a good idea for all ports that
* need multiple dist- or patchfiles...
I think "more than one" sets the threshold a little too low, for
instance if emacs-20.5.1 requires emacs-20.5.tar.gz and
emacs-20.5.1.patch.gz, it probably doesn't have to go into its own
subdirectory. (Or we'll be yo-yo'ing back and forth as the patches
appear and disappear between releases.)
The current criteria is that "if a port requires a lot of distfiles or
you can't deduce the port's name from the name[s] of the distfiles",
which I believe is good enough.
Furthermore, I think that can be safely applied to SO5, which has the
following list according to files/md5:
MD5 (so51a_lnx_01.tar) = 680d631d0cd85e8735b8c3f821cfd2b5
MD5 (applicat.rdb) = 963432192fb13ee5fd39578becf614c3
MD5 (libofa517li.so) = 3c3c31b28f3eb40f895fd3db6a121484
MD5 (libsdb517li.so) = d780b4699658ea3ce71aa9a6cc015137
The last three are clearly not obvious enough for my eyes..
-PW
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?vqcso1a6z6e.fsf>