From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Mar 6 14:21:33 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA00581 for ports-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 14:21:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu (sunrise.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.38.121]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA00576 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 14:21:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from asami@localhost) by sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01200; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 14:21:27 -0800 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 14:21:27 -0800 Message-Id: <199603062221.OAA01200@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu> To: adam@veda.is CC: ports@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <199603062113.VAA01980@veda.is> (message from Adam David on Wed, 6 Mar 1996 21:13:28 +0000 (GMT)) Subject: Re: PATCH_PRFX in bsd.port.mk From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk * By setting PATCH_PRFX to a suitable value, all files in * ${PATCHFILES} are renamed during fetch into /usr/ports/distfiles, * and are accessed from the new locations there. This is useful when * one port has many patchfiles (in which case it makes sense to group * them in a subdirectory), or when a few patchfiles have unclear * names (in which case it makes sense to prefix a port-specific name * component). Ok. I was considering adding a new variable for putting all files (distfiles + patchfiles) in a subdirectory. Currently some ports just get around this by defining ${DISTDIR} = ${PORTSDIR}/distfiles/. Is it ok if I take out all the PATCH_PRFX hacks and replace it with something like DISTDIR ?= ${PORTSDIR}/distfiles/${DISTDIR_PRFX}/ ? That will take care of all the ports that have "Makefile"s and such among their distfiles, as well as the patchfile situation you described. The only difference (for you) would be that the distfile itself will go to the subdirectory as well (which is probably a good thing anyway). It won't do any renaming, but putting them in a subdirectory should be good enough. Satoshi