Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:23:46 -0700
From:      Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org>, Maho Nakata <maho@FreeBSD.org>, portmgr@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Enforcing "DIST_SUBDIR/DISTFILE" uniqueness
Message-ID:  <44E81C12.9050306@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <cb5206420608190944o5c07dbefwfdf50586ae23ef5a@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <cb5206420608160931q65adc8fft6084e7f498b403f5@mail.gmail.com> <cb5206420608190944o5c07dbefwfdf50586ae23ef5a@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
> On 8/16/06, Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> I'd like to propose a policy to enforce a change in
>> DIST_SUBDIR whenever a distfile is rerolled in-place, i.e.
>> when checksum changes, but name stays unchanged.
>>
>> Moreover, effort should be made whenever possible to
>> make the old file available for download from an
>> alternative location.
>>
>> This policy will rid us of some fetch-related headaches.
>> It also will make it possible to share distfiles between
>> hosts with ports trees of different dates. Some rare issues
>> might also be resolved as a result of this. For one, ftp
>> mirrors could be configured to allow upload, but deny
>> modification and/or deletion.
>>
>> One thing I would personally frown upon is using
>> something like "fetch -o othername" to save a file with a
>> different name. It looks all right, but it prevents us from
>> looking for mirrors in an automated way when master
>> sites go down.
> 
> Well, if no one is really against,

I am violently against this proposal, but I was really hoping that someone
else would speak up first.

> I'll start preparing statements
> for documentation and thinking about a way to watch for
> "violations". I also intend to go through CVS and find past
> "offenders" to prod them about it.
> 
> The recent openoffice update rerolled a file in-place, and while
> it may seem irrelevant or even beneficial (erasing 286Mb of
> the old file), the fact is that it prevents us from keeping distfile
> history on unversioned file servers,

IMO this represents a very small minority of FreeBSD users, and frankly I
feel that it is incumbent on you to solve this problem for your circumstance.

> not to mention problems with fetch many of us experience.

I recently added logic to portmaster to handle this kind of situation
transparently for the user. A more general solution to this part of the
problem could be had by improving the logic in the 'make checksum' target.
OTOH, your solution would break the logic that portmaster (and I believe
portupgrade also) uses to detect and delete stale distfiles.

Doug


-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44E81C12.9050306>