Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 23:26:05 -0700 From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami | =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?=) To: jkh@freefall.cdrom.com Cc: ports@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: /usr/ports/distfiles - did I screw the pooch here? Message-ID: <199504220626.XAA03858@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <27409.798513264@freefall.cdrom.com> (jkh@freefall.cdrom.com)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* It's beginning to occur to me that I kind of screwed up with the whole
* /usr/ports/distfiles idea. It shouldn't be a directory, it should be
* a PATH! Each element in the path should be scanned for R/W access
* (assuming it even exists) and put into a list so that the following
* behavior is exhibited:
:
* What do you think, Satoshi? I'm not sure I'm going to have time to
* actually do this myself.. :-(
I think it's an excellent idea, and can't think of any reason why we
can't do this. If we can agree on the below, I can modify bsd.port.mk
after I finish the Makefile upgrade thingy.
(1) The default path (/usr/ports/distfiles:/usr/local/ports/distfiles:.)?
(2) How to solve the compatibility problem (to not break existing
Makefiles, we probably need to define a new variable (DISTPATH?)
and set DISTDIR equal to the first component).
Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504220626.XAA03858>