From owner-freebsd-ports  Fri Apr 21 23:26:10 1995
Return-Path: ports-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id XAA11122
          for ports-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 23:26:10 -0700
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id XAA11116
          ; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 23:26:07 -0700
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9) id XAA03858; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 23:26:05 -0700
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 23:26:05 -0700
Message-Id: <199504220626.XAA03858@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: jkh@freefall.cdrom.com
CC: ports@freefall.cdrom.com
In-reply-to: <27409.798513264@freefall.cdrom.com> (jkh@freefall.cdrom.com)
Subject: Re: /usr/ports/distfiles - did I screw the pooch here?
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami | =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?=)
Sender: ports-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 * 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