From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Dec 12 5:38: 4 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from thoth.mch.sni.de (thoth.mch.sni.de [192.35.17.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1A0214F9D for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 05:38:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from andre.albsmeier@mchp.siemens.de) X-Envelope-Sender-Is: andre.albsmeier@mchp.siemens.de (at relayer thoth.mch.sni.de) Received: from mail1.siemens.de (mail1.siemens.de [139.23.33.14]) by thoth.mch.sni.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04604 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 14:38:00 +0100 (MET) Received: from curry.mchp.siemens.de (curry.mchp.siemens.de [139.25.42.7]) by mail1.siemens.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA03819 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 14:38:00 +0100 (MET) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by curry.mchp.siemens.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA39030 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 14:37:59 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 14:37:57 +0100 From: Andre Albsmeier To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami Cc: Andre Albsmeier , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How about using DIST_SUBDIR for ports w multiple files (StarOffice5) Message-ID: <19991212143757.A34632@internal> References: <19991210175316.A17711@internal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from asami@freebsd.org on Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 05:31:21PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 10-Dec-1999 at 17:31:21 -0800, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote: > * From: Andre Albsmeier > > * I got one suggestion: How about putting all the Staroffice > * related files in a separate directory and not in ${DISTDIR} > * directly? I think this is a good idea for all ports that > * need multiple dist- or patchfiles... > > I think "more than one" sets the threshold a little too low, for Agreed. That's why I brought the example with flash-0.4.3.tgz flash-0.4.3-fbsd-19990512.patch in another mail, where it is obvious to which port the files belong. -Andre > instance if emacs-20.5.1 requires emacs-20.5.tar.gz and > emacs-20.5.1.patch.gz, it probably doesn't have to go into its own > subdirectory. (Or we'll be yo-yo'ing back and forth as the patches > appear and disappear between releases.) > > The current criteria is that "if a port requires a lot of distfiles or > you can't deduce the port's name from the name[s] of the distfiles", > which I believe is good enough. > > Furthermore, I think that can be safely applied to SO5, which has the > following list according to files/md5: > > MD5 (so51a_lnx_01.tar) = 680d631d0cd85e8735b8c3f821cfd2b5 > MD5 (applicat.rdb) = 963432192fb13ee5fd39578becf614c3 > MD5 (libofa517li.so) = 3c3c31b28f3eb40f895fd3db6a121484 > MD5 (libsdb517li.so) = d780b4699658ea3ce71aa9a6cc015137 > > The last three are clearly not obvious enough for my eyes.. > > -PW To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message