From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Mar 6 15:42:16 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA10369 for ports-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:42:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from veda.is (veda.is [193.4.230.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA10363 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:42:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from adam@localhost) by veda.is (8.7.4/8.7.3) id XAA07033; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 23:41:21 GMT From: Adam David Message-Id: <199603062341.XAA07033@veda.is> Subject: Re: PATCH_PRFX in bsd.port.mk To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 23:41:18 +0000 (GMT) Cc: ports@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199603062241.OAA01391@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu> from Satoshi Asami at "Mar 6, 96 02:41:53 pm" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL10 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > > 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/. > > Another thing I forgot to say -- the reason why I wanted to do this > was so that we can descend to the appropriate subdirectory of > ftp.freebsd.org as a backup site. (Your PATCH_PRFX code correctly > handles this, but porters setting DISTDIR doesn't.) It was another person who completed part of this support (just for the record). Yes, the main idea was to handle such cases generically. This new change is an improvement, though slightly more restrictive (which is not necessarily a bad thing either). -- Adam David