On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 12:03:55PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > I think I see what you mean. GH_TAGNAME doesn't normally set DISTFILES > directly, only DISTNAME (which normal ports infrastructure turns into > DISTFILES by adding EXTRACT_SUFX). So using GH_DISTFILE to build up > that name doesn't work (unless we strip off EXTRACT_SUFX but that > doesn't make sense to me). > > Whereas with GH_COMMIT, DISTNAME isn't automatically set at all, it > is up to the port to do so. > > Originally I only had this set when you use GH_COMMIT not GH_TAGNAME, > on the basis that it's easy to get the distfile name for a GH_TAGNAME > port anyway. But then I wanted to test an update of librenms from a > commit hash rather than the usual tag, and realised it would reduce > churn in a port Makefile if it could cope with changing between the > two. > > So in a nutshell (assuming I understand the question correctly): > yes it's intended.
Thanks, that makes more sense. OK kn
