Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 07:07:47 +0200 From: Ben Woods <woodsb02@gmail.com> To: Piotr Kubaj <pkubaj@riseup.net> Cc: Don Lewis <truckman@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Is there an equivalent of NO_EXTRACT? Message-ID: <CAOc73CBOCYTbGN=pmf4pxFRfCiPx7fOBfJBPQbLt2SuyJqqaYw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <55EFBCD8.6060206@riseup.net> References: <201509090444.t894i8pZ088435@gw.catspoiler.org> <55EFBCD8.6060206@riseup.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9 September 2015 at 07:00, Piotr Kubaj <pkubaj@riseup.net> wrote: > On 09/09/2015 06:44, Don Lewis wrote: >> If you list the distfiles that you want to have automatically extracted >> in EXTRACT_ONLY, then it will leave the unlisted ones untouched. > But I want the other one to properly extract and compile. Does that mean > I'd have to write my own extract: step? No need to write your own extract: step. EXTRACT_ONLY will do what you need. A quote from the Porter's handbook: 5.4.6. EXTRACT_ONLY If only some of the DISTFILES must be extracted=E2=80=94for example, one of them is the source code, while another is an uncompressed document=E2=80=94list the filenames that must be extracted in EXTRACT_ONLY. DISTFILES=3D source.tar.gz manual.html EXTRACT_ONLY=3D source.tar.gz When none of the DISTFILES need to be uncompressed, set EXTRACT_ONLY to the empty string. EXTRACT_ONLY=3D Hope that clears it up for you. Cheers, Ben
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOc73CBOCYTbGN=pmf4pxFRfCiPx7fOBfJBPQbLt2SuyJqqaYw>