Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:05:03 -0500 From: Jason Harris <jharris@widomaker.com> To: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> Cc: cvs-all@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 Message-ID: <20040128130503.GA62072@pm1.ric-03.lft.widomaker.com> In-Reply-To: <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> <20040128061406.B62139@blues.jpj.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 07:16:06AM -0500, Trevor Johnson wrote: > > > Hum, that I read, but it only talked of a new feature that we could u= se if > > > we wanted. The question is still there, should we (port committers) u= se it > > > in our make.conf and have the SIZE field present event if USE_SIZE is= not > > > defined in the Makefile ? > I think it would only cause minor confusion. Users can just be told that > the feature hasn't been deployed in all ports. NetBSD seems pretty thorough in their recording of distfile sizes and I think FreeBSD should be too: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3D61972 =20 > So far I've added SIZE lines to 3% of all ports. What do you propose? FWIW, I have sizes, SHA-1, RIPEMD160/RMD160, and SHA256 hashes for most of the ports/distfiles. Anyone who wants the data in raw form is welcome to it, and I can work up a mega-patch as well. > 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 think a mega-patch can be audited easily enough (egrep -e "+MD5|-MD5") that even security-officer@ shouldn't object to adding sizes to all ports at once. Also, the size data can be independently verified and/or obtained on bento and/or ftp-master, for most ports. --=20 Jason Harris | NIC: JH329, PGP: This _is_ PGP-signed, isn't it? jharris@widomaker.com | web: http://keyserver.kjsl.com/~jharris/ --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAF7N+SypIl9OdoOMRAg3nAJ9Hv0BragPI0f1cX4CBIqSmsCOD3wCfUWAM uawUB5aZy2zr8ITS15nf1ho= =J03J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040128130503.GA62072>