Re: Loosing mandatory DISTNAME

["OBATA Akio" <obache%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:47:19 +0900, Joerg Sonnenberger 
<joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:31:09PM +0900, OBATA Akio wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:24:52 +0900, Joerg Sonnenberger 
>> <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 09:12:39AM +0900, OBATA Akio wrote:
>> >> Yes, but DISTNAME also deliver DISTFILES.
>> >> It is not desired effect in this case.
>> >
>> > I don't think removing the requirement for DISTNAME just for this edge
>> > case is a good idea. Meta package are different anyway, they should just
>> > set META_PACKAGE=yes. Many are still left to change, some still override
>> > DISTFILES, but that is a question of manual work.
>>
>> You are in this state, and not feel any sense of discomfort that?
>
> The DISTFILES argument only applies for in-tree packages. That's a small
> number of packages. For meta packages it doesn't apply. I prefer in-tree
> packages to clearly say they don't have distfiles, if that is your
> question.

My suggestion does not intend neigher to fix technical issue nor convenience 
for such kind of packages.
In the pkgsrc guide:

 * DISTNAME is the basename of the distribution file to be downloaded from the
   package's website.

And in fact, some packages don't require distribution file.
Then mandatory DISTNAME is wrong.
And when no distribution file, define package name with DISTNAME look odd.
I'm bothered by a feeling of strangeness...

-- 
"Of course I rove NetBSD":-)
OBATA Akio / obache%NetBSD.org@localhost