Enforcing "DIST_SUBDIR/DISTFILE" uniqueness

[NAKATA Maho]

In Message-ID: <cb5206420608190944o5c07dbefwfdf50586ae23ef5a at mail.gmail.com> 
Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer at FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> On 8/16/06, Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > I'd like to propose a policy to enforce a change in
> > DIST_SUBDIR whenever a distfile is rerolled in-place, i.e.
> > when checksum changes, but name stays unchanged.
> >
> > Moreover, effort should be made whenever possible to
> > make the old file available for download from an
> > alternative location.
> >
> > This policy will rid us of some fetch-related headaches.
> > It also will make it possible to share distfiles between
> > hosts with ports trees of different dates. Some rare issues
> > might also be resolved as a result of this. For one, ftp
> > mirrors could be configured to allow upload, but deny
> > modification and/or deletion.
> >
> > One thing I would personally frown upon is using
> > something like "fetch -o othername" to save a file with a
> > different name. It looks all right, but it prevents us from
> > looking for mirrors in an automated way when master
> > sites go down.

I understand your point...but how do you do the source tar ball 
is not redistributable? (though such a case is very minor exception)

> Well, if no one is really against, I'll start preparing statements
> for documentation and thinking about a way to watch for
> "violations". I also intend to go through CVS and find past
> "offenders" to prod them about it.
> 
> The recent openoffice update rerolled a file in-place, and while
> it may seem irrelevant or even beneficial (erasing 286Mb of
> the old file), the fact is that it prevents us from keeping distfile
> history on unversioned file servers, not to mention problems
> with fetch many of us experience.

Okay.
Please do an official statement for the filename.

thanks
-- NAKATA, Maho (maho at FreeBSD.org)