Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:30:57 +0400 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org> To: "Roman Bogorodskiy" <novel@FreeBSD.org>, "FreeBSD Ports" <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Enforcing "DIST_SUBDIR/DISTFILE" uniqueness Message-ID: <cb5206420608200230s535977bnf198c51967c2ed95@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20060819131738.GA1001@underworld.novel.ru> References: <cb5206420608160931q65adc8fft6084e7f498b403f5@mail.gmail.com> <20060819131738.GA1001@underworld.novel.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/19/06, Roman Bogorodskiy <novel@freebsd.org> wrote: > Andrew Pantyukhin 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. > > What are you going to do with port already using DIST_SUBDIR (like e.g. > gnome related ports)? Leave it at maintainer's discretion. DIST_SUBDIR can be multilevel, so I imagine something like gnome/rerolled and what not. > Would not it pollute distdir with lots of outdated > dirs/files? No, why sould it? > How are you going to deal with cases when re-rolled tarball > brings some security risk? We've got many security risks in CVS. Should we delete them all? > Would not it break scripts/apps cleaning DISTDIR? Nope, it would actually fix portsclean. Please don't set bogus reply-to headers. Thanks!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420608200230s535977bnf198c51967c2ed95>