portname based distfiles directory

[Eric Hall]

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