distfile belongs to?

[Doug Barton]

Wesley Shields wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 10:38:42AM -0600, Scot Hetzel wrote:
>> The bsd.port.mk patch could be changed to:
>>
>> .if (${OSVERSION} > 602100  && ${OSVERSION} < 700000) || ${OSVERSION} > 
>> 700027
>> PKGDISTFILE= "comment distfile"
>> .else
>> PKGDISTFILE="distfile"
>> .endif
>> :
>> :
>> -	${ECHO_CMD} "@distfle $${file}" >> ${TMPPLIST}; \
>> +	${ECHO_CMD} "@${PKGDISTFILE} $${file}" >> ${TMPPLIST}; \
>>
>> This would allow the bsd.port.mk patch be added, without having to
>> update the pkg_install tools on older systems.
>>
>> Then the ports tools (portupgrade, portmaster, ..) could be changed to
>> look for either "@distfile" or "@comment distfile" in the +CONTENTS
>> file.

@distfile is cleaner, but are you saying that we can add the comment
even if pkg_create doesn't have special knowledge of the @distfile
stuff? If so, isn't the sense of your test reversed? /me confused :)

Meanwhile, for the record you're right that adding code to portmaster
to parse either format is not hard. It'll be much less work than what
I've got there now. :)

Given that I'm about to release a new version of portmaster, I'd
really like to get this change in now if I can. Can we reach a
consensus (portmgr?) that what Scot proposed is how it will be done,
even if we don't agree on the mechanics or timing yet?

> I was going to suggest wrapping the patch in an OSVERSION check for the
> proper pkg_info update, however I think your approach is better. 

To me it seems odd that pkg_create has to know about every line in the
tmp plist. (Having pkg_info know about it is nice too, but not
necessary to make the mechanics of the change work.) Would it not be a
better idea to update pkg_create so that it simply packages up what's
there? Is there a benefit to pkg_create having special knowledge about
the details like this?

> I'm going to make it ignore the -F flag when there are no recorded
> distfiles (and document this fact in the manpage).

Good change.

> As for the discussion:
> I did find an old thread[1] which discusses this.  The point was raised
> that +CONTENTS is probably not the perfect place for this, to which I
> agree.  But putting it in +DISTINFO will require more complexity than
> embedding it in +CONTENTS.  The argument could be made that recording
> the distfiles which were used to make the contents justifies the
> existence of their names in +CONTENTS (as a @comment).

There is already enough "other" stuff in the +CONTENTS file that this
isn't an issue for me, but if others have strong opinions on this
point let's air them out.

Doug

-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection