portname based distfiles directory

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Aug 8, 2007, at 19:06, Rainer Müller wrote:

> 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.

No objection.

> I have two proposals:
>
> 1) distfiles/${category}/${name}
>    Hierarchy matching the ports tree. Using name only results in a  
> long
>    list if we add files for more ports.

If you like. I don't care one way or the other.

> 2) trunk/dports/${category}/${name}/distfiles
>    Although that would mix up sources only and binaries in the same
>    tree, if that matters (e.g. on branching/tagging). But with this
>    solution all files belonging to a port would be together at one
>    place.

Objection. a) In the long term, we want to get the portfiles *out* of  
the trunk since they don't belong there anyway, not put more things  
into the trunk. See previous messages from jmpp, I believe. b) The  
dports directory is automatically downloaded to all clients via sync  
and selfupdate. We don't want all clients to have to automatically  
receive all these distfiles too, since a high percentage of people  
won't install those particular ports anyway. So I see it as highly  
desirable to separate the portfiles, which everyone will always  
download, from the distfiles, which will only be downloaded as needed.