On Aug 8, 2007, at 19:06, Rainer Müller wrote:
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.
No objection.
I have two proposals:
1) distfiles/${category}/${name}
Hierarchy matching the ports tree. Using name only results in a
long
list if we add files for more ports.
If you like. I don't care one way or the other.
2) trunk/dports/${category}/${name}/distfiles
Although that would mix up sources only and binaries in the same
tree, if that matters (e.g. on branching/tagging). But with this
solution all files belonging to a port would be together at one
place.
Objection. a) In the long term, we want to get the portfiles *out* of
the trunk since they don't belong there anyway, not put more things
into the trunk. See previous messages from jmpp, I believe. b) The
dports directory is automatically downloaded to all clients via sync
and selfupdate. We don't want all clients to have to automatically
receive all these distfiles too, since a high percentage of people
won't install those particular ports anyway. So I see it as highly
desirable to separate the portfiles, which everyone will always
download, from the distfiles, which will only be downloaded as needed.
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
