From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 14 19:50:28 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84FE716A41F for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:50:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5229943D53 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:50:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j8EJoSCj073126 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:50:28 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j8EJoSFI073125; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:50:28 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:50:28 GMT Message-Id: <200509141950.j8EJoSFI073125@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Pav Lucistnik Cc: Subject: Re: ports/86098: [PATCH] devel/pear-PEAR/Makefile.common: allow use by foreign packages X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Pav Lucistnik List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:50:28 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/86098; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Pav Lucistnik To: Roman Neuhauser Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/86098: [PATCH] devel/pear-PEAR/Makefile.common: allow use by foreign packages Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:46:33 +0200 Roman Neuhauser pise v st 14. 09. 2005 v 21:42 +0200: > # pav@FreeBSD.org / 2005-09-14 21:35:51 +0200: > > Roman Neuhauser p=ED=B9e v st 14. 09. 2005 v 21:19 +0200: > > > and the DIST_SUBDIR doesn't look right either. > >=20 > > Looks ok if we say all pear things will go there (ie. non-pear.php.org > > ones too). >=20 > Isn't that cyclic reasoning? IOW, that's exactly the point: should > we say that? We should, IMHO. OT: Same should have been done for p5 ports long time ago. Just observe the mess in your /usr/ports/distfiles now :) --=20 Pav Lucistnik