From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 9 03:00:59 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C16516A4CE for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2005 03:00:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from www.ninjabucket.com (ninjabucket.com [65.174.56.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B3B43D2F for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2005 03:00:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from aaron@snaphat.com) Received: from snaphat.com (pcp01483743pcs.frncht01.de.comcast.net [68.82.65.116]) by www.ninjabucket.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j0930kXq082691; Sat, 8 Jan 2005 22:00:46 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from aaron@snaphat.com) Received: from [192.168.100.49] (localhost [192.168.100.49]) by snaphat.com (8.13.2/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j0930eDS029255; Sat, 8 Jan 2005 22:00:40 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from aaron@snaphat.com) Message-ID: <41E09E58.1070202@snaphat.com> Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:00:40 -0500 From: Aaron Myles Landwehr User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsh.lists@comcast.net, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, conrads@cox.net References: <41E04ECA.80508@comcast.net> <41E07158.2010205@snaphat.com> <41E091B3.4070809@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <41E091B3.4070809@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Makefile correction? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:00:59 -0000 Sean wrote: > Thanks Aaron, > > That did the trick. > Questions however. > The DISTFILES= statement you added is obviously different from the > DISTFILES+= in the (WITH_OPENING_BOOK) section. > Does the + symbol just mean in addition to the main file? Welcome Sean, I believe the '=+' symbol means an addition to the current distfiles. If there are multiple files than all of the distfiles need to be specified(including the main one). When WITH_OPENING_BOOKS is defined that makes multiple distfiles, because of the specific package required by opening books. > I am guessing if I am correct in the + comment above that an > 'EXTRACT_ONLY" statement is not needed because it is an additional > file to the main? The statement is needed, because EXTRACT_ONLY is telling 'make' to only attempt to extract the specified files. The second distfile isn't suppose to be unzipped; which, brings me to a certain realization that the EXTRACT_ONLY statement should be in the WITH_OPENING_BOOKS section; as it is only relevant when there are mulitple distfiles. I did a bit more research and realized my modification does not pass through 'portlint' without warnings; as the DISTFILES statement should not be used when only one distfile is needed(this occurs when WITH_OPENING_BOOKS is not used). I came up with a solution that passes through 'portlint' with flying colors. Just add: DISTFILES+= ${PORTNAME}-${PORTVERSION}${EXTRACT_SUFX} to the WITH_OPENING_BOOKS section. I'll send this to the maintainer as well. > Looking at another Makefile, the gcompris2 one to be exact, I do not see > an EXTRACT_ONLY line. I looked at two others and they also do not have > an EXTRACT_ONLY line. > This statement is only needed in certain circumstances, or there is > more then one way to do the same thing? You are correct, the statement is only needed if one or more distfiles does not need to be unzipped. -Aaron Myles Landwehr