Hi,
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014, John Marino wrote:
This still doesn't make sense. Distfiles are of no concern to binary
packages, so why would I continue to clutter /var/db/pkg with a large
tree of directories that is then duplicated to /var/db/ports?
What problem in portmaster or the options framework was solved by moving
this?
If the portmaster-created "distfiles" bother you, stop using portmaster,
perhaps? It seems superfluous to me anyway; I don't get why people feel
they need it with pkg.
I already did a while back. Yet, it's still the recommended tool in the
handbook if I'm not mistaken. FreeBSD has also always adhered to a
sensible hier(7), which portmaster is now breaking.
IFAIK, options has always been in /var/db/ports, this is not new. It
didn't get moved.
Correct. Portmaster moved it's distfiles file.
I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve with the "what problem was
solved" line of questioning. If it were moved, are you trying to get it
moved back? What's the goal here?
Yeah. One of the advantages and early implementation goals of pkg(1) was
to reduce clutter in /var/db/pkg.
Secondly, 70-80% of common ports now use an options file (think DOCS,
EXAMPLES, NLS), so the chance that /var/db/ports/portname already exists
is pretty high.
Why then reintroduce files/directories in /var/db/pkg that affect both
port building and deployment? I don't understand what the upside to this
change in portmaster is and thus assume that it solved an issue.
--
Melvyn
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
