Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:30:57 -0600 From: Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com> To: Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> Cc: freebsd-ports@www.freebsd.org Subject: Re: Guestion about base Message-ID: <790a9fff05021511301581802b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CEE7C04BD9E54F98F1C41B15@utd49554.utdallas.edu> References: <CEE7C04BD9E54F98F1C41B15@utd49554.utdallas.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:24:15 -0600, Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> wrote:
> I worked on a new port submission for security/base, which is a replacement
> for security/acid. It's since been handed off to someone who had actually
> submitted a port before I did.
>
> Yesterday I noticed that there were two base-*.tar.gz files in
> /usr/ports/distfiles on the machine I used for development:
>
> base-1.0.1.tar.gz is the distro for the base I was working on.
> base-2.3.0.tar.gz is the distro for devel/p5-base.
>
> If security/base gets accepted in the ports tree, is this going to create a
> potential conflict with devel/p5-base? What would happen if both distros
> had the save major and minor version numbers? Would one get renamed? Or
> would it stomp all over the other one?
>
It could create a conflict when the major and minor versions are the
same for both ports. We solve these problems by adding "DIST_SUBDIR="
to the Makefile for the port. This causes the fetch and extract
targets to place/get the file from ${DISTDIR}/${DIST_SUBDIR}.
Scot
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?790a9fff05021511301581802b>