Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 14:21:27 -0800 From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: adam@veda.is Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PATCH_PRFX in bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <199603062221.OAA01200@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: <199603062113.VAA01980@veda.is> (message from Adam David on Wed, 6 Mar 1996 21:13:28 %2B0000 (GMT))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* By setting PATCH_PRFX to a suitable value, all files in
* ${PATCHFILES} are renamed during fetch into /usr/ports/distfiles,
* and are accessed from the new locations there. This is useful when
* one port has many patchfiles (in which case it makes sense to group
* them in a subdirectory), or when a few patchfiles have unclear
* names (in which case it makes sense to prefix a port-specific name
* component).
Ok. I was considering adding a new variable for putting all files
(distfiles + patchfiles) in a subdirectory. Currently some ports just
get around this by defining ${DISTDIR} = ${PORTSDIR}/distfiles/<foo>.
Is it ok if I take out all the PATCH_PRFX hacks and replace it with
something like
DISTDIR ?= ${PORTSDIR}/distfiles/${DISTDIR_PRFX}/
? That will take care of all the ports that have "Makefile"s and such
among their distfiles, as well as the patchfile situation you
described. The only difference (for you) would be that the distfile
itself will go to the subdirectory as well (which is probably a good
thing anyway).
It won't do any renaming, but putting them in a subdirectory should be
good enough.
Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603062221.OAA01200>