From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 28 04:16:03 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 254B516A4CE; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 04:16:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from blues.jpj.net (blues.jpj.net [208.210.80.156]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DA5F43D4C; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 04:15:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from trevor@jpj.net) Received: from blues.jpj.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blues.jpj.net (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0SCG6rr052412; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:16:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from trevor@jpj.net) Received: from localhost (trevor@localhost)i0SCG6p6052409; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:16:06 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: blues.jpj.net: trevor owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:16:06 -0500 (EST) From: Trevor Johnson To: Kirill Ponomarew In-Reply-To: <20040128085404.GE9290@voodoo.oberon.net> Message-ID: <20040128061406.B62139@blues.jpj.net> References: <200401272051.i0RKp7J6006306@repoman.freebsd.org> <53963718.1075241820@pouet.in.mat.cc> <1075238894.733.10.camel@gyros> <20040128085404.GE9290@voodoo.oberon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 cc: Mathieu Arnold cc: Joe Marcus Clarke cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/archivers/9e distinfo ports/archivers/bzip distinfo ports/archivers/cabextract distinfo ports/archivers/dact distinfo ports/archivers/fastjar distinfo ports/archivers/gshar+gunsh X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:16:03 -0000 > > Hum, that I read, but it only talked of a new feature that we could use if > > we wanted. The question is still there, should we (port committers) use it > > in our make.conf and have the SIZE field present event if USE_SIZE is not > > defined in the Makefile ? Unless I misunderstood, its purpose for now is just to let a user know how big the distfiles for a port are, before the user starts to download them. It's optional. > I don't think it should be policy, but having 50/50 ports with > SIZE field will also confuse people. I think it would only cause minor confusion. Users can just be told that the feature hasn't been deployed in all ports. So far I've added SIZE lines to 3% of all ports. What do you propose? Do you want me to back out my commits? Do you want the USE_SIZE stuff taken out of bsd.port.mk? Do you want all ports to be changed simultaneously so they list sizes? What I am intending to do is to gradually--a few categories at a time--add size lines to the ports maintained by me and those in the care of ports@, altogether 30% of the collection. If only a handful of ports have the information, I doubt users will bother to look for it. I'll hold off awhile on continuing this work--please get back to me if you still have objections. -- Trevor Johnson