On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 02:24:41PM -0400, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
Up until now we've uploaded tarballs and other distfiles to our distfiles section in svn to user named directories, together with a / distfiles/general dir for unmaintained ports. It's been discussed that using port name based directories is more natural and straight forward for the purpose of the /distfiles directory, so I wanted to poll you all on making such move. Other than logical organization, other benefits would be not needing the general dir any longer and the fetch proc finding the distfiles on the first hit, as seen by the following example:
[snip example]
Moving to port name based directories would still allow us to use user named ones as they currently exist, if need be, thanks to the "macports:<user>" syntax for our distfiles in the fetch proc.
So, what says you'all? Regards,...
I agree, in fact I'd sent a similar note the other day, only to (now) discover it'd been auto-rejected:
I think we should change the policy to using port-specific directories, i.e. .../distfiles/${portname} (i.e. .../distfiles/slib) as 'port' is already looking there, thus no additions to Portfiles are required and there's a sensible linkage between the port and the distfile. As well, if a maintainer decides to no longer maintain a particular port, the distfile would need to be moved out of that person's distfile directory and either to general/ or to another maintainer's directory.
-eric