On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:20 AM, J.C. Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > The size is not that bad by comparison and dealing with a single file is > more reliable dealing with a whole bunch of small files, >
I tried building from the large archive, but the directory tree after make expand didn't match what the ports makefile expected. Manually, I would type something like this: $ cd /usr/ports/obj/MonetDB*/MonetDB*/MonetDB/MonetDB/ $ ./configure $ gmake $ gmake install $ cd ../../ $ cd clients/clients $ ./configure etc. I got as far as adding a do-build target that wasn't triggered. (Maybe I used the wrong hook name?) Anyway, it was getting complex. Upstream also provides a huge shell script in the big archive but I never build that way myself and it has lots and lots of logic in it I'll never use. Using tiny and simple Makefiles seems cleaner and easier to maintian. > > if upstream has a habit of changing/re-releasing files under the same > file name (e.g. screws up chksum and forces the project to mirror the > "old" version after release). > I spot checked a few releases and they seem good about versioning. Thanks, m
