Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:08:42 +0400 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org> To: "Doug Barton" <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org>, portmgr@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Enforcing "DIST_SUBDIR/DISTFILE" uniqueness Message-ID: <cb5206420608200208j4c27177dh3b8d004e8213de4f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <cb5206420608200158q22edef00jd53e646439207149@mail.gmail.com> References: <cb5206420608160931q65adc8fft6084e7f498b403f5@mail.gmail.com> <cb5206420608190944o5c07dbefwfdf50586ae23ef5a@mail.gmail.com> <44E81C12.9050306@FreeBSD.org> <cb5206420608200158q22edef00jd53e646439207149@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/20/06, Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 8/20/06, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > OTOH, your solution would break the logic that portmaster (and I believe > > portupgrade also) uses to detect and delete stale distfiles. > > AFAICT portmaster's logic still misses the case when > DIST_SUBDIR has changed for whatever reason. Oh, now that I've had another look at portmaster's logic it doesn't makes sense at all. What if distfiles of different ports have similar %[-_]* names? What if different ports require the same distfile of different versions? What if distname changed radically? You can't make such broad assumptions about distfile patterns. You should probably do it the same way portsclean -D does - i.e. to check "dist_subdir/distfile" against distinfo files of all installed ports or all ports, whichever a user prefers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420608200208j4c27177dh3b8d004e8213de4f>