Re: no-arch directory
On 2009/04/25 21:28, J.C. Roberts wrote: > If something with problematic redistribution like Java 1.5 was broken > into multi-packages (main, docs, ...), and the docs were properly put > in the no-arch directory, then we now have a redistribution problem. not really, because the distributed files come from the directories with the arch name; the files from no-arch are hardlinked into the right place.
Re: no-arch directory
> The $PACKAGE_REPOSITORY directory, typically /usr/ports/packages/, will > normally contain subdirectories for arch, as well as, further > subdirectories for desired\allowed redistribution (cdrom, ftp, ...). No, we don't do that. > /usr/ports/packages/i386/ > /usr/ports/packages/i386/all > /usr/ports/packages/i386/ftp > /usr/ports/packages/i386/cdrom > > The /usr/ports/packages/no-arch/ directory does not contain further > subdirectories for desired\allowed redistribution? > > If something with problematic redistribution like Java 1.5 was broken > into multi-packages (main, docs, ...), and the docs were properly put > in the no-arch directory, then we now have a redistribution problem. > > Is the no-arch redistribution subdirs a problem worth fixing? Nope.
no-arch directory
The $PACKAGE_REPOSITORY directory, typically /usr/ports/packages/, will normally contain subdirectories for arch, as well as, further subdirectories for desired\allowed redistribution (cdrom, ftp, ...). /usr/ports/packages/i386/ /usr/ports/packages/i386/all /usr/ports/packages/i386/ftp /usr/ports/packages/i386/cdrom The /usr/ports/packages/no-arch/ directory does not contain further subdirectories for desired\allowed redistribution? If something with problematic redistribution like Java 1.5 was broken into multi-packages (main, docs, ...), and the docs were properly put in the no-arch directory, then we now have a redistribution problem. Is the no-arch redistribution subdirs a problem worth fixing? -- J.C. Roberts
