Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:54:27 -0600 From: "Conrad J. Sabatier" <conrads@cox.net> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Bug in ports system's DISTFILES handling? Message-ID: <20050119005427.70f7b3ac@dolphin.local.net> In-Reply-To: <20050117225702.GA31708@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20050117131440.2486ac2a@dolphin.local.net> <41EC175F.8060805@tvog.net> <20050117225702.GA31708@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:57:02 -0800, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:51:59PM -0500, Frank Laszlo wrote:
>
> > This is quite possibly a bug. I took a lot at bsd.port.mk, and
> > DISTFILES is supposed to default to
> > ${PORTNAME}-${PORTVERSION}${EXTRACT_SUFX} Which is does, until you
> > "append" something else to it, exactly what you are trying to do.
> > Other ports I'm looking at simply define the DISTFILES below the
> > MASTER_SITE. This is going to cause a warning in portlint, but hey..
> > what can ya do. I'm going to investigate further. Hope this was
> > helpful.
>
> I don't think it's a bug, you're just trying to do something you can't
> do (mix DISTFILES with the "implicit" DISTFILES value computed by
> bsd.port.mk). If you want to use a custom list of distfiles, define
> them *all* explicitly.
>
> Kris
This just seems less than intuitive, if you ask me, especially given
that the += operator does work with other variables without requiring
the explicit definition of an initial value first.
I mean, if this were something that was consciously decided on, that's
one thing, but the lack of consistency would seem to indicate that it's
just not as well implemented as it could/should be.
I think it should be corrected, myself.
--
Conrad J. Sabatier <conrads@cox.net> -- "In Unix veritas"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050119005427.70f7b3ac>