Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > Because given the $portname-$portversion naming of 99% of the > distfiles (and the unique names of the 1% that are left), I just don't > see collisions as a problem. I don't see it as a problem with the > FreeBSD ports collection either, and they're almost 3X bigger than we > are.
I didn't know they are using such a flat namespace. >> Why are you against adding more logic to the fetch code? > > Because it's always "someone" who gets to add it and that someone > hasn't volunteered yet. If you're volunteering, then I withdraw most > of my objection. > [...] > I guess this just doesn't bother me as much as it evidently bothers > you. I like the notion of a single URL which points to all the > distfiles. Again, however, if you're volunteering to do the work in > MacPorts then you're supporting your proposal in the only way that > really counts and I'm happy to withdraw my objection. I didn't want to volunteer until we got to a conclusion. But of course I would volunteer to improve our fetch code to include this http://distfiles.macports.org/<distname>/<file> scheme. The fetch code is not the difficult part for this, the hard part is to get the fetching done for every platform/variant. Rainer _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
