Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:47:40 +0900 (JST) From: NAKATA Maho <chat95@mac.com> To: dougb@FreeBSD.org Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, maho@FreeBSD.org, infofarmer@FreeBSD.org, portmgr@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Enforcing "DIST_SUBDIR/DISTFILE" uniqueness Message-ID: <20060821.144740.26469411.chat95@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <44E941BB.7030408@FreeBSD.org> References: <44E81C12.9050306@FreeBSD.org> <20060821.103329.34694587.chat95@mac.com> <44E941BB.7030408@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In Message-ID: <44E941BB.7030408@FreeBSD.org> Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > NAKATA Maho wrote: > > In Message-ID: <44E81C12.9050306@FreeBSD.org> > > Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > >> I recently added logic to portmaster to handle this kind of situation > >> transparently for the user. A more general solution to this part of the > >> problem could be had by improving the logic in the 'make checksum' target. > >> OTOH, your solution would break the logic that portmaster (and I believe > >> portupgrade also) uses to detect and delete stale distfiles. > > > > It seems that I should not say something about such kind of issue. > > Why not? You certainly won't offend me. :) I thought that such kind of political issue must be handeled by portmgr, and IMHO original idea, retaining DISTFILE uniqueness is a good one. and I'm not violating the rule of FreeBSD ports system, since I sufficiently explained at commit log. But I don't want to implement this :) thanks, -- NAKATA, Maho (maho@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060821.144740.26469411.chat95>