From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jul 31 13:10:37 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4123065A
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:10:37 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from feld@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.25])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13EED213F
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:10:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.43])
 by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D96420F9B
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:10:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web3 ([10.202.2.213])
 by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:10:28 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=message-id:from:to:mime-version
 :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:subject:date:in-reply-to
 :references; s=smtpout; bh=DPmtHaLFWoHdx/apdn5hserXLKs=; b=jtROO
 oVgMcZG4jyNjyY0TUlBCkYcYuMFA70bNwhS4aJ2vE+Onihdnjcu9f5SnqYKKpyRm
 gdqeVS7wIriDzpnTO4z7bzyLWkmZe4+glh1CrA2B4HEg4jP/hX14IwjqHs0MrPwt
 s3YQAbHQcMJbvnKNPM/LyFyKZnq3m5uo9oiKoc=
Received: by web3.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix, from userid 99)
 id 4F968B01F76; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:10:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1375276228.4960.3681111.005EA613@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Sasl-Enc: WTqH/GV5Wip5OmGnSs0H9g7VuXZ1IUEnlpKIY/Qreq6t 1375276228
From: Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org>
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-9e4be734
Subject: Re: r253680 in CURRENT breaks GH ports and maybe others
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:10:28 -0500
In-Reply-To: <51F90B8D.4030808@mail.lifanov.com>
References: <831982af5f96759f17d21aba62b02eb6@mail.lifanov.com>
 <20130731144853.2a13617b@bsd64.grem.de>
 <51F90B8D.4030808@mail.lifanov.com>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:10:37 -0000

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013, at 8:05, Nikolai Lifanov wrote:
> 
> I fully agree. We already checksum the *distfiles*.
> It shouldn't be important what the source is.
> 
> Are there any objections to adding --no-verify-peer to FETCH_ARGS across 
> the board?
> 

Won't that break fetch for users whose fetch doesn't support
--no-verify-peer?

# fetch --no-verify-peer https://foo.com/bar.tar.gz
fetch: illegal option -- -