From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 27 06:10:07 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8566A57F for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 06:10:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-x22e.google.com (mail-pa0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5979C2538 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 06:10:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id eu11so4162744pac.19 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:10:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6QeekGurIpIgCtlEOBU0M4di2Y2C+x8DWzyXiThInns=; b=AU/0KjsmEJ1ca0KFfuT3104Ile2jnSwmjPj0/qbQ5iGC4B1HVAIT8H1bi6pG3xJQ/a D5o65a7f9VonNKHKavG4/G6SRxgK86PwaJvH9QVmw8f5X9LfILmcWdNoZXVs/IrJwnAv 97vsGqHaE03eH++BVnssnoQcvNMW76QK8yiRcKWs6Unbseu28albR/M9ExOlq/3g5v3d uuszeroSza1a4bag3MsMTgGs/Uz2tcap4qvulWdiQy5sJNYANiNCiaPaPUv11xT9564U wGrTgOK4AJELd9jVdSjLIpz3m71eIknoxjD0eVAKBMAOpDZFr5q+AJ7x5PT+nDayUteh x2jQ== X-Received: by 10.68.223.1 with SMTP id qq1mr28347482pbc.62.1403849406822; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:10:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.7] (ppp59-167-128-11.static.internode.on.net. [59.167.128.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gi1sm12929944pbd.15.2014.06.26.23.10.05 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:10:06 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Kubilay Kocak Message-ID: <53AD0AB6.3080304@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:09:58 +1000 From: Kubilay Kocak Reply-To: koobs@FreeBSD.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthias Andree , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Remove single MASTER_SITE warning in portlint? References: <53AD060E.9080601@freebsd.org> <53AD075C.9080409@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <53AD075C.9080409@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 06:10:07 -0000 On 27/06/2014 3:55 PM, Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 27.06.2014 07:50, schrieb Joe Marcus Clarke: >> Apparently there was some discussion on IRC about this. A PR (Bugzilla) >> has been opened requesting the portlint warning about only a single >> MASTER_SITE to be done away with. >> >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191079 >> >> This was added before my time with portlint, and I could go either way >> on it. We do have a list of CDN MASTER_SITE aliases to avoid warning >> for silly things. But the question remains: do we need this warning at >> all? > > I would probably prefer an option to make it actually run curl -I (send > HTTP HEAD commands) or thereabouts against make fetch-urlall-list to > check if the file is fetchable, either way you go with the warning. We > could then have warnings about unfetchable URLs. I know we have > separate online services for that, but it would be fitting for portlint. > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > That's an interesting thought Matthias. Technically you could even check for multiple RR's for a host lookup, thereby making the check more robust to false positives. I believe the user experience for distfile fetching could be improved (for transient and permanent failures) in other ways too, and I'm not yet sold either way on the question of this check being removed. For the sake of argument (I haven't though about my position on this yet), we (and portlint) could enforce 2 MASTER_SITES. Mirroring is a solved problem and we have the resources to do so, why might we not go down that route? Koobs