From owner-freebsd-ports  Fri Oct 20 00:11:07 1995
Return-Path: owner-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id AAA18610
          for ports-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 00:11:07 -0700
Received: from GndRsh.aac.dev.com (GndRsh.aac.dev.com [198.145.92.241])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id AAA18603
          for <ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 00:11:03 -0700
Received: (from rgrimes@localhost) by GndRsh.aac.dev.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17668; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 00:10:40 -0700
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com>
Message-Id: <199510200710.AAA17668@GndRsh.aac.dev.com>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT avail
To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 00:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: adam@veda.is, ports@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199510200644.XAA03321@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> from "Satoshi Asami" at Oct 19, 95 11:44:23 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2123      
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
>  * Please don't use the NO_PACKAGE as the criteria on weither the distfiles
>  * end up on the CDROM this time.  Many distfiles where left off of the 2.0.5
>  * CDROM and it appears that this was used as the criteria for doing it.  I
>  * already mentioned one to you that was this way in private email (elm) and
>  * just want to make sure that you have found a ``better'' criteria mechanism
>  * for what distfiles go on the cdrom.
> 
> It's not been the "criteria", Rod...it's only that there is no safe
> and convenient mechanism other than "make package" to do the top-down
> build. ;)

Perhaps criteria was the wrong word, how about selection mechanism or
control knob.  It was what caused these to be missing on the 2.0.5 cdrom
correct?

> I'm planning to revamp the whole legal/commercial/slimey license
> paradigm after 2.1 goes out.  For instance, the ones that say "don't
> sell for profit" can be on the ftp site as distfiles and packages.

YAK?  (Yet another Knob?) :-)

>  * I don't have a list of ones I have run accross but I know there where at
>  * least 2 or 3 of them that the only reason they are not packages is because
>  * they have compiled in gunk that makes packaging them impractical.
>  * 
>  * Seems here is yet another one :-).
> 
> For now, we need to figure this out case-by-case.  Here is what I
> found:
> 
> =====
> >> grep NO_PACKAGE /usr/ports/*/*/Makefile
...
> /usr/ports/mail/elm/Makefile:NO_PACKAGE=     yes     # I don't know, why

Compiles in the domain name of the host it is built on :-(.

...
> 
> Which means, elm, gn, wn, inn, and XFree86 don't have distribution
> problems.  I've already fetched elm, wn and XFree86, can I do the same 
> for gn and inn?  Maintainers?  Adam & Torsten? :)

Thanks for the fetch.  Inn is probably in the compiled in configuration
boat (it would be very hard to make a portable package of inn as many
things are setup during the build process :-).

Not sure about gn, don't use it.


-- 
Rod Grimes                                      rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com
Accurate Automation Company                 Reliable computers for FreeBSD