On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 02:24:41PM -0400, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
>
> Up until now we've uploaded tarballs and other distfiles to our
> distfiles section in svn to user named directories, together with a /
> distfiles/general dir for unmaintained ports. It's been discussed
> that using port name based directories is more natural and straight
> forward for the purpose of the /distfiles directory, so I wanted to
> poll you all on making such move. Other than logical organization,
> other benefits would be not needing the general dir any longer and
> the fetch proc finding the distfiles on the first hit, as seen by the
> following example:
>
[snip example]
>
> Moving to port name based directories would still allow us to use
> user named ones as they currently exist, if need be, thanks to the
> "macports:<user>" syntax for our distfiles in the fetch proc.
>
> So, what says you'all? Regards,...
I agree, in fact I'd sent a similar note the other day, only to
(now) discover it'd been auto-rejected:
> I think we should change the policy to using port-specific
> directories, i.e. .../distfiles/${portname} (i.e. .../distfiles/slib)
> as 'port' is already looking there, thus no additions to Portfiles are
> required and there's a sensible linkage between the port and the distfile.
> As well, if a maintainer decides to no longer maintain a
> particular port, the distfile would need to be moved out of that
> person's distfile directory and either to general/ or to another
> maintainer's directory.
-eric
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
