Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 11:27:01 +0000 (GMT) From: Adam David <adam@veda.is> To: andreas@knobel.gun.de (Andreas Klemm) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Update for wn port (because of new wn release) Message-ID: <199603201127.LAA14771@veda.is> In-Reply-To: <199603200849.JAA05238@knobel.gun.de> from Andreas Klemm at "Mar 20, 96 09:49:48 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[from Andreas Klemm] > I have made some changes to the wn port, because I read in > c.o.l.a., that the new version 1.13.3 is available. comp.os.linux.admin? :) > BTW: the installation of the old port failed (release 1.12.5) > because the admin of the ftp server seemed to remove the old > tar archive. I watched this in other packages from time to time, > too. 1.12.5 has been replaced by 1.12.6 as the latest stable version, whereas 1.13.3 is the latest current version. This raises the question, which I have been meaning to ask for some time on the freebsd-ports mailing list, about general guidelines for maintaining 2 versions of a port (as in this case) corresponding to -current and -stable. > To keep the ports mechanism working, even if the package isn't present > any more on the given list of ftp sites in Makefile, we should store > in every case a copy of the source archive on the default site > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/distfiles I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that this used to be done automatically, as ftp.freebsd.org was mirroring /usr/ports/distfiles on freefall. But even if that was the case, it has been many months now since general committers/porters have not had write access to this directory. Again, I assumed (probably wrongly) that there was a regular script running under cron to do a "make fetch" in /usr/ports for the purpose of repopulating the ftp archive distfiles. > It's really bad manner, to write a port and to put only > such entry into it > MASTER_SITES = ftp://foo.bar.com/somewhere/ > ^ > I'd really suggest, to put a copy into the distfiles dir on > ftp.freebsd.org in any circumstance. Bad emotions come up, if the > ports mechanism isn't working reliable. A port must be downloadable, > even if the maintainer of the primary ftp site deceided to remove > any old stuff. I doubt whether we have write access to the ftp distfiles directory. This seems to be Satoshi's exclusive domain. Is the accepted procedure therefore to upload to an incoming directory and notify asami@freebsd.org of the new file(s)? For the reason of my previous 3 paragraphs, I am Cc:ing this to freebsd-ports for comment. > So ony should browse through evey Makefile and look for ports > with only a MASTER_SITES = line in it. > > This has to be a MASTER_SITES += line, and a local copy of the > source on ftp.freebsd.org, as I suggested above. It is perfectly acceptable to use a simple MASTER_SITES=... because of the way that ftp.freebsd.org is appended by bsd.port.mk as a backup master site, and because of the MASTER_SITE_OVERRIDE mechanism. > I changed the /usr/local/wnlog directory to /usr/local/wn/log, I > think one more directory in parallel to the /usr/local/wn dir tree > is too much. This is acceptable, with an appropriate set of filemodes, and I agree. It would also seem a good idea to reorganise the data hierarchy somewhat, in order to show more clearly that it is only provided as an example (and for the documentation). For this purpose, a separate subdirectory of /usr/local/wn is ideal... how about /usr/local/wn/data.example ? > Now the bad news, either my local system (-current) has a problem, > or wn-1.13 isn't ok .... If I start wn, then after about 20 seconds > it tosses an error message out. Adam, perhaps you could look, if > something is screwed up with this version ... ?! Thanks. I'm new > to wn, perhaps I overlooked something after installation... Which error message is it? The logfile and the err-logfile must exist and be writeable by 'nobody'. 'wn' is normally served via inetd or from the commandline for simple testing, and 'swn' is the standalone server daemon. Of course, it could be something specific to the 1.13.* version. I will look into this, and also await feedback from the ports list about maintaining both stable and current versions of a port. [...diffs...] The diffs were straightforward, nothing looked amiss. > -- > andreas@knobel.gun.de > Andreas Klemm -- Adam David <adam@veda.is>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603201127.LAA14771>