From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Dec 10 8:53:29 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from thoth.mch.sni.de (thoth.mch.sni.de [192.35.17.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1179C151FD for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:53:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from andre.albsmeier@mchp.siemens.de) X-Envelope-Sender-Is: andre.albsmeier@mchp.siemens.de (at relayer thoth.mch.sni.de) Received: from mail1.siemens.de (mail1.siemens.de [139.23.33.14]) by thoth.mch.sni.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14914 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:53:17 +0100 (MET) Received: from curry.mchp.siemens.de (curry.mchp.siemens.de [139.25.42.7]) by mail1.siemens.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA09306 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:53:17 +0100 (MET) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by curry.mchp.siemens.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA26288 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:53:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:53:16 +0100 From: Andre Albsmeier To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: How about using DIST_SUBDIR for ports w multiple files (StarOffice5) Message-ID: <19991210175316.A17711@internal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Just mailed the following suggestion to the StarOffice5 maintainer/committer and it was suggested to got to the ports mailing list with it: ------------------------ snip ----------------------- I got one suggestion: How about putting all the Staroffice related files in a separate directory and not in ${DISTDIR} directly? I think this is a good idea for all ports that need multiple dist- or patchfiles... ------------------------ snap ----------------------- What do people think about it? I find that the whole DISTDIR is more maintable and easier to look at but there can be things I didn't think of, of course... Thanks, -Andre To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message