From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 19 06:54:39 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12AA316A4CE; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:54:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lakermmtao06.cox.net (lakermmtao06.cox.net [68.230.240.33]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4398743D45; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:54:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from conrads@cox.net) Received: from dolphin.local.net ([68.14.122.164]) by lakermmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP id <20050119065436.CISF7687.lakermmtao06.cox.net@dolphin.local.net>; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:54:36 -0500 Received: from dolphin.local.net (localhost.local.net [127.0.0.1]) by dolphin.local.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j0J6sWFr086757; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:54:32 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from conrads@cox.net) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:54:27 -0600 From: "Conrad J. Sabatier" To: Kris Kennaway Message-ID: <20050119005427.70f7b3ac@dolphin.local.net> In-Reply-To: <20050117225702.GA31708@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20050117131440.2486ac2a@dolphin.local.net> <41EC175F.8060805@tvog.net> <20050117225702.GA31708@xor.obsecurity.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.13 (GTK+ 1.2.10; amd64-portbld-freebsd6.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Frank Laszlo cc: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org cc: Edwin Groothuis Subject: Re: Bug in ports system's DISTFILES handling? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:54:39 -0000 On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:57:02 -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:51:59PM -0500, Frank Laszlo wrote: > > > This is quite possibly a bug. I took a lot at bsd.port.mk, and > > DISTFILES is supposed to default to > > ${PORTNAME}-${PORTVERSION}${EXTRACT_SUFX} Which is does, until you > > "append" something else to it, exactly what you are trying to do. > > Other ports I'm looking at simply define the DISTFILES below the > > MASTER_SITE. This is going to cause a warning in portlint, but hey.. > > what can ya do. I'm going to investigate further. Hope this was > > helpful. > > I don't think it's a bug, you're just trying to do something you can't > do (mix DISTFILES with the "implicit" DISTFILES value computed by > bsd.port.mk). If you want to use a custom list of distfiles, define > them *all* explicitly. > > Kris This just seems less than intuitive, if you ask me, especially given that the += operator does work with other variables without requiring the explicit definition of an initial value first. I mean, if this were something that was consciously decided on, that's one thing, but the lack of consistency would seem to indicate that it's just not as well implemented as it could/should be. I think it should be corrected, myself. -- Conrad J. Sabatier -- "In Unix veritas"