Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 20:48:03 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r324901 - head/biology/tinker Message-ID: <521116E3.7030403@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <5210C446.8080908@FreeBSD.org> References: <201308181138.r7IBcZdA083649@svn.freebsd.org> <5210C446.8080908@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/18/2013 14:55, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 8/18/2013 6:38 AM, John Marino wrote: >> Author: marino >> Date: Sun Aug 18 11:38:34 2013 >> New Revision: 324901 >> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/324901 >> >> Log: >> biology/tinker: Regenerate distinfo to unbreak fetch >> >> Apparently the distfile was rerolled. The sizes of the file are only a few >> bytes apart. Since the master site never changed, it's reasonable just to >> regenerate the distinfo and bump the PORTREVISION. >> > > *exactly* what changed is needed to be known before we update the > distinfo. Did you do a comparison between the two tarballs? As I mentioned in the commit message, I couldn't obtain the first version. I didn't have it in any cache. Perhaps only the submitter of the PR 180518 could have done this. However, after committing, I realized I could have compared 6.2.06 with the previous version 6.2.05 which I did have. In any case, the tarball is from the same master site and this port has been broken for more 30 days. Had the tarball been compromised, it very likely would have been caught in such a long time. So do we trust the site or not? John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?521116E3.7030403>