portname based distfiles directory

[Juan Manuel Palacios]

	So guys, all of you in the Cc list with user named directories in  
the /distfiles section of our repo, could we start this move and  
adapt the Portfiles accordingly? Thanks!


On Aug 8, 2007, at 10:57 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

>
> 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.


	I'd prefer a flat file layout, as that allows us to simply list  
"macports" as the master site and have the fetch procedure find the  
distfile on the first try. A Category level would imply further  
tweaking, unnecessary for now in my opinion.

>
>> 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.


	I tried getting the ports dir out of trunk but was met with some  
opposition (I still believe it doesn't belong there!). But in any  
case, adding the ditfiles to the ports dir, regardless of where the  
latter resides, is not the way to go.

	Regards,...


-jmpp