Subject: Re: [RFC] code replacement for the PKGBASE, PKGNAME section in bsd.pkg.mk
To: Roland Illig <rillig@NetBSD.org>
From: Quentin Garnier <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/14/2005 11:35:06
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 11:16:31AM +0200, Roland Illig wrote:
> But the main point remains that I've never understood why DISTNAME=20
> should be used over PKGNAME. Since the according check has been in=20
> pkglint since revision 1.1, where we imported it from the FreeBSD ports=
> collection, that scheme isn't our fault. Can we get rid of it?
While I care very little about the issue, I still think that having
DISTNAME explicitely defined was, and is still, something positive in
The thing you start the package with is the dist file. That's
something you have no control over, and the only thing you know when
you start working with it.
Of course, there are packages without dist files, and so on; cases for
which setting DISTNAME makes no sense at all. Also, we don't put the
extension in DISTNAME, which is kind of a hack.
But I do like the idea of "this is what I start with". PKGNAME is not
something you (as a package author) decide beforewards: you actually
derive it from the name the original author gave to his work.
This is also typically what happens when you create several packages
from a unique dist file. DISTNAME is what you know, and it will have
to appear in the Makefile somehow, even with your patch.
Finally, what is important is consistency, so please include a patch
for url2pkg and pkglint because all of this has to go together,
otherwise would-be packagers will be even more confused.
Quentin Garnier - email@example.com - cube@NetBSD.org
"When I find the controls, I'll go where I like, I'll know where I want
to be, but maybe for now I'll stay right here on a silent sea."
KT Tunstall, Silent Sea, Eye to the Telescope, 2004.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----