From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 19 15:02:40 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D20106566B for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:02:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kamikaze@bsdforen.de) Received: from mail.bsdforen.de (bsdforen.de [212.204.60.79]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169158FC08 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:02:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mobileKamikaze.norad (unknown [88.130.223.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.bsdforen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1BFB8A1198; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:02:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4B2CEB07.7010804@bsdforen.de> Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:02:31 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20091126) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "b. f." References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ioquake3 support more platforms 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: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:02:40 -0000 b. f. wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 02:50:31PM +0100, Dominic Fandrey wrote: >>> So when I submitted ioquake3-1.36 I condemned some poor committer >>> to read 366609 lines of code? >> We expect them to test-install the initial code to make sure it's >> not malware. >> >> We expect them to scan the diffs to make sure the system isn't rooted. > >> What's your alternate suggestion? Just let everyone commit whatever >> they want and hope for the best? > > Aren't the two of you talking at cross-purposes here? It seems to me > that the OP is looking for a way to update a port to a distfile > created from a snapshot of project sources -- not in the sense of > sources that are recreated each and every build by fetching a snapshot > from a remote VCS, but an actual tarball that has been audited, > checksummed, and uploaded to a project server. Surely this is needed > for a few ports, including some now in the tree? I have the same impression. I'm wondering how this could be the case. In the OP I wrote: > I'm providing distfiles, ... I don't see the wiggle room for anything spontaneously changing when properly checksummed distfiles are involved. -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?