Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 23:32:29 +0000 (GMT) From: Adam David <adam@veda.is> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PATCH_PRFX in bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <199603062332.XAA06695@veda.is> In-Reply-To: <199603062221.OAA01200@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu> from Satoshi Asami at "Mar 6, 96 02:21:27 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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/<foo>.
>
> Is it ok if I take out all the PATCH_PRFX hacks and replace it with
> something like
>
> DISTDIR ?= ${PORTSDIR}/distfiles/${DISTDIR_PRFX}/
This looks like a very good idea, simple, elegant and even more generic.
DISTDIR_SUFX or DISTFILES_SUBDIR would probably be a better variable name,
I prefer the latter.
> It won't do any renaming, but putting them in a subdirectory should be
> good enough.
Since they will all be grouped together in a unique subdir, there is less need
for renaming. The main reason that I wanted to enable renaming was to avoid
situations where a port with very few additional files (with unclear names)
would require a subdirectory. Putting the main distfile in the subdirectory
is fine by me, but I do have some aversion to seeing files with very long
names residing in directories which are named almost identically to the file. :)
I'll get over it... ;)
--
Adam David <adam@veda.is>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603062332.XAA06695>