Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 01:03:23 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@apropo.ro> To: Jason Harris <jharris@widomaker.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SIZE different between MASTER_SITE(s) and ftp.FreeBSD.org for some ports Message-ID: <20040203010323.1a15d9a5@it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro> In-Reply-To: <20040202221127.GK360@pm1.ric-05.lft.widomaker.com> References: <20040202185228.5ec0f7b2@it.buh.cameradicommercio.ro> <20040202121602.O10824@blues.jpj.net> <20040202221127.GK360@pm1.ric-05.lft.widomaker.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:11:27 -0500 Jason Harris <jharris@widomaker.com> wrote: > In gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports, you wrote: > > >> =====> Fetching for /usr/ports/misc/floatator/ > > > > The distfile was re-rolled but "diff -burN" showed no changes. I added > > the new MD5 and size. > > Unfortunately, this results in: > > fetch -S 52768 52770 http://floatator.cichon.com/download/floatator-0.2.1.tar.gz > > So, I think removing the first size is the best (quick) fix, since those > who have the original file won't be calling fetch and those who don't > will likely grab it from a MASTER_SITE. > > But if the MASTER_SITEs are > down and the distfile caches report the file size (and have the original > distfile), this will make the fetch fail unnecessarily. I would prefer bumping port_revision or something; if that's unacceptable change the SIZE and the md5 and let people fetch again. The idea of having 2 "same" distfiles with different md5 and sizes just doesn't seems right (and will likely produce more noise). > However, unless bsd.port.mk (and fetch(1)) can be made to work properly > with multiple SIZEs, Not impossible, but unlikely as this will also require multiple MD5, if I'm not missing something here; and my first thought would be something very bad about security. > I think removing the pre-reroll MD5 and SIZE and > making the new distfile propagate to all distfile caches is the best > long-term fix. All MASTER_SITEs which are supposed to be mirrors but > have the pre-reroll distfile(s) can be quickly skipped if they report > file sizes or commented out if they result in unnecessary fetches. > (Removing SIZEs and/or allowing outdated mirrors to go unnoticed until > the next software release are not good alternatives, IMO.) -- IOnut Unregistered ;) FreeBSD user
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040203010323.1a15d9a5>