From owner-freebsd-ports  Sat Dec 16 00:09:22 1995
Return-Path: owner-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id AAA23003
          for ports-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 1995 00:09:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA22997
          for <ports@freebsd.org>; Sat, 16 Dec 1995 00:09:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.6.9) id AAA00661; Sat, 16 Dec 1995 00:08:20 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 00:08:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199512160808.AAA00661@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: pgf@american.com
CC: ports@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <199512091331.IAA00103@mozart.american.com> (message from Paul Fox on Sat, 09 Dec 1995 08:31:15 -0500)
Subject: Re: package names
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

(catching up on old mail....)

 * doesn't this problem exist?  there is already the potential
 * for a name clash between the freebsd package name and the name of the
 * distribution on the original site (though i assume this tends to be avoided
 * during the original port).  seems like you'd need to add something more
 * descriptive to the name (e.g. xv-3.10a.freebsd-pkg1.1.tgz :-) to avoid
 * it.

This is not a problem, the original distribution goes to
/usr/ports/distfiles and the package goes to a subdirectory of
/usr/ports/packages.

And in general, if you have one (getting it with ftp), you don't need
the other. :)

Satoshi