Bug in ports system's DISTFILES handling?

Kris Kennaway kris at obsecurity.org
Mon Jan 17 14:57:03 PST 2005

On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:51:59PM -0500, Frank Laszlo wrote:

> This is quite possibly a bug. I took a lot at bsd.port.mk, and DISTFILES 
> is supposed to default to
> ${PORTNAME}-${PORTVERSION}${EXTRACT_SUFX} Which is does, until you 
> "append" something else to it, exactly what you are trying to do. Other 
> ports I'm looking at simply define the DISTFILES below the MASTER_SITE. 
> This is going to cause a warning in portlint, but hey.. what can ya do. 
> I'm going to investigate further. Hope this was helpful.

I don't think it's a bug, you're just trying to do something you can't
do (mix DISTFILES with the "implicit" DISTFILES value computed by
bsd.port.mk).  If you want to use a custom list of distfiles, define
them *all* explicitly.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20050117/88dc29a5/attachment.bin

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list