MacPorts caching of distfiles [was Re: ntfs-3g 1.1120 source missing]

[Jordan K. Hubbard]

On Feb 24, 2008, at 9:29 PM, Rainer Müller wrote:

> Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>>> All distfiles in one single directory? I am against that at all!
>> Why?  Collisions?   If so, please name the collisions in question,   
>> because I cannot find any.
>
> Maybe not yet, but maybe they will come in later? Why not be  
> collisions aware?

Because given the $portname-$portversion naming of 99% of the  
distfiles (and the unique names of the 1% that are left), I just don't  
see collisions as a problem.  I don't see it as a problem with the  
FreeBSD ports collection either, and they're almost 3X bigger than we  
are.

>> If you add indirection to this then you lose the ability to have a   
>> global URL path that points to a mirror (either that or you need  
>> to  add extra logic to the MacPorts fetch code).
>
> Why are you against adding more logic to the fetch code?

Because it's always "someone" who gets to add it and that someone  
hasn't volunteered yet.   If you're volunteering, then I withdraw most  
of my objection.

> And have one big cluttered directory without any links which file  
> belongs to which port? With the distname approach, it adapts the  
> layout of /opt/local/var/macports/distfiles where distfiles are  
> currently stored locally.

I guess this just doesn't bother me as much as it evidently bothers  
you.  I like the notion of a single URL which points to all the  
distfiles.   Again, however, if you're volunteering to do the work in  
MacPorts then you're supporting your proposal in the only way that  
really counts and I'm happy to withdraw my objection.

- Jordan