Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:47:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek <tim@ppp1643.on.sympatico.ca> To: James Raynard <jraynard@jraynard.demon.co.uk> Cc: Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, ports-jp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/4304 ports Recommendation re. Ports Collection Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971013223928.248E-100000@ppp1643.on.sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <19971013225014.30732@jraynard.demon.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[cc adjusted off -committers]
[subj changed from "Administrative notice: 8 days to 2.2.5"]
On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, James Raynard wrote:
> I know this is probably too late for 2.2.5, but I thought it might be
> worth mentioning anyway. What do people think to putting the size of
> the tarball somewhere in the skeleton for each port? This would be
See the pr
o [1997/08/14] ports/4304 ports Recommendation re. Ports Collection
It should have a rather lengthy follow-up by me discussing the
idea.
> Something along the lines of:-
>
> --- bsd.port.mk Mon Oct 13 20:07:19 1997
> +++ bsd.port.mk.new Mon Oct 13 20:18:53 1997
> @@ -389,6 +389,8 @@
> MD5?= md5
> .endif
> MD5_FILE?= ${FILESDIR}/md5
> +LS?= ls -s
> +SIZES_FILE?= ${FILESDIR}/sizes
It would go over better if you could conceive of a way to do this
without adding another files/file file.
Oddly enough, though, I was just thinking that ports/4304 should
be closed RSN unless someone coughed-up some code...
--
tIM...HOEk
OPTIMIZATION: the process of using many one-letter variables names
hoping that the resultant code will run faster.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971013223928.248E-100000>