Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 21:44:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org> To: pkubaj@riseup.net Cc: stephen@missouri.edu, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Is there an equivalent of NO_EXTRACT? Message-ID: <201509090444.t894i8pZ088435@gw.catspoiler.org> In-Reply-To: <55EFB74C.5090207@riseup.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9 Sep, Piotr Kubaj wrote: > On 09/09/2015 00:58, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen wrote: >> I think EXTRACT_ONLY will do the equivalent of what you need. >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org [owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org] on behalf of Piotr Kubaj [pkubaj@riseup.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 4:44 PM >> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org >> Subject: Is there an equivalent of NO_EXTRACT? >> >> I'm a maintainer of a few ports. For the next update I'm preparing, I >> want to make it possible to download some addons via options. The thing >> is, they are downloaded as-is. They are not meant to be extracted >> (although they are zips), since it's the program itself that manages it. >> Is there such a possibility? >> > No, EXTRACT_ONLY actually extracts distfiles. I don't want them to be > extracted, I want them to be copies as-is, since the installed port will > manage it itself, it even requires zips. The only solution I see is to > tar those distfiles and put them on a separate mirror. Is there any > better solution to this? Or maybe someone introduces NO_EXTRACT to > bsd.port.mk :) If you list the distfiles that you want to have automatically extracted in EXTRACT_ONLY, then it will leave the unlisted ones untouched.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201509090444.t894i8pZ088435>