From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 18 12:16:56 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7FA16A46B for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:16:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from boris@brooknet.com.au) Received: from pecan.exetel.com.au (pecan.exetel.com.au [220.233.0.17]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC8113C4B0 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:16:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from boris@brooknet.com.au) Received: from 28.201.233.220.exetel.com.au ([220.233.201.28] helo=[192.168.100.148]) by pecan.exetel.com.au with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1I0GA8-0007SW-Hi; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:16:52 +1000 In-Reply-To: <46765049.3080605@sasktel.net> References: <4673B0DB.3040100@sasktel.net> <46742CF6.3050901@sasktel.net> <20070616202819.GA29331@rot13.obsecurity.org> <4674572D.9060707@sasktel.net> <8623CF89-858D-4524-9B4A-9147913739F3@brooknet.com.au> <46765049.3080605@sasktel.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <4B85C7D6-E5C1-450C-B2B2-8D130C1B909F@brooknet.com.au> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Sam Lawrance Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:16:36 +1000 To: Stephen Hurd X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) Cc: ports Subject: Re: Clarification on fetch/extract targets X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:16:56 -0000 On 18/06/2007, at 7:28 PM, Stephen Hurd wrote: > Sam Lawrance wrote: >> >> On 17/06/2007, at 7:33 AM, Stephen Hurd wrote: >> >>> Kris Kennaway wrote: >>>>> Actually, I found it quite easy to have the port pull the >>>>> sources from svn. Who are we concerned about making it easier >>>>> for and why (and how is it any easier?) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Everyone behind a firewall that only allows fetching via HTTP/ >>>> FTP, for >>>> one. Also everyone without live network access, and those with >>>> pay-per-download who have a free local distfile mirror, etc. >>>> >>>> Tarballs are overwhelmingly preferred. >>>> >>>> Kris >>>> >>> Ok... I was looking at it from the standpoint of someone who >>> wants the newest version and doesn't care of the pkg-plist is >>> stale. They could just bump PORTREVISION and reinstall. >>> >>> So... how about this: >>> - A distfile target which generates a distfile. The idea being >>> that this would be the one on the local distfile mirror or what >>> have you. >>> - A WITH_SVN option (defaults to off) which allows the end user >>> to specify he/she wants to use the subversion. >>> >>> In this case then, the end user would need to bump PORTREVISION >>> and enable the WITH_SVN option. >> >> Rather than suggesting that users change PORTREVISION, just >> suggest that they set WITH_SVN and force an upgrade (eg. >> portupgrade -f yourport). > > You mean have it just grab the current head no matter what when > WITH_SVN is enabled? *shudder* > > All kinds of arguments against that spring to mind... > - This is essentially an option to break the pkg-plist > - The current trunk may not build/work/etc so the option will only > work "sometimes" > - The version number becomes wrong if a later update to the port > increases the revision to something less than the current one, the > tools will "upgrade" it to an older version > > These are just the ones that spring to mind initially... I'm sure > there are other wild and crazy things that would/could happen. Maybe I don't understand what you're trying to do. What's the point of bumping PORTREVISION? For that matter, what's the point of WITH_SVN given what you've just said?