Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:33:21 +0300 (EEST) From: Adrian Penisoara <ady@warpnet.ro> To: Stefan Esser <se@mi.uni-koeln.de> Cc: Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: fetch + size Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980923142003.17833B-100000@ady.warpnet.ro> In-Reply-To: <19980923015229.A7423@mi.uni-koeln.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Stefan Esser wrote: > > > (1) The -S flag of "fetch" just went into -current, if it doesn't work > > > as well as it's supposed to this might cause a great instability > > > in ports > > > > This won't help too many people as for the moment I assume that the vast > > majority of FreeBSD production machines run 2.2-stable... > > And if it might be buggy in bleeding edge -current... > > The implementation of -S is very simple, it was only a few lines to add > to fetch. The -S option can be enabled/disabled via bsd.port.mk, but it > is possible to override the setting in make.conf. OK, sounds reasonable. > > > > (2) The patch adds a SIZE line to files/md5. That is quite > > > displeasing aesthetically (there's a reason why the file was > > > called "md5" in the first place...) > > > > I don't see how a file with different size would have the same MD5 > > checksum !... > > Yes, that's why I want to add the SIZE info! > I agree that the name "md5" is not fully appropriate for a file that > holds different information as well, but the designer of the MD5 file > syntax obviously expected other information to go into that file, or > he would not have added the "MD5" line lead in. > Adding another file wastes lots of disk space (an estimated 1700 files > of 1KB minimum or 1.7MB), but the "Md5" file is far less than 0.5KB for > just about every port, which makes the on disk file size stay unchanged > if the SIZE lines go in as well. OK, that's a good reason not to split it into 2 files. > The name of the "md5" file could be "checksums", but changing this now > would be more of a mess than just allowing different contents in that > file. > If you look at the suggested patch, then you see that calculation of > the SIZE info takes just a single line in bsd.port.mk. > > The SIZE lines can't possibly cause problems, since all lines not starting > with "MD5" are ignored if an old bsd.port.mk is used (e.g. in 2.2.x). Good. > > I've often wished I had the size info in **some** place, to manually check > the size of the distribution files before starting the download. And this > is an additional bonus of having the SIZE lines, IMHO. > > > Why should we need a SIZE line on top of the MD5 checksum ? > > Because you don't know whether the MD5 checksum will match until after > you fetched the file (possibly tens of megabytes over a privately paid > modem or ISDN link). The size can be queried from the file server, and > in fact this did already happen in fetch (for the progress bar). This is the Right Reason(tm) -- I like it ! > > > > What do people think? I'm leaning towards leaving this out for 3.0R, > > > for reasons stated above. (We'll be dealing with a whole bunch of > > > diffs to files/md5 if this goes in, so it's going to be a royal pain > > > to change it later....) > > > > IMHO I think that this SIZE addition would be an uneccesary complication! > > Sure, if you got 200KB/s bandwidth and don't pay for volume or connect > time. I prefer to have fetch ignore files that changed (and don't fit a > port) before downloading them and finding that the port build aborts > because of the MD5 mismatch. At that time the ports mechanism can't go > back and fetch another file form a different master site, since the "fetch" > target comes before the "checksum" target, and without the size check, the > fetch target will succeed for files that will never make it through "checksum". > > I do not expect the SIZE info to improve the checksum target, but instead to > put a first consistency check into the fetch target, at little cost. Even if > most distribution files don't change without a change in name, it still > happens and it happens more often than one would naively inspect (check the > CVS logs for all those comments ...) Yes, like imap-uw... :) > > Again: I consider this a low risk change, since I have tested the "-S" patch > on a variety of systems, even from behind a very restrictive firewall. > > The creation of the SIZE lines is automatic from within the "makesum" target. > If a port doesn't have a "SIZE" line for its distfile(s), then the previous > behaviour will be preserved (i.e. fetch will be invoked without "-s size"). Oh, just a small clarification, please: in what aspect will "fetch -s" behave different from the previous versions ? > > The addition of SIZE lines is benign (besides the unpleasent aspect of having > non-MD5 info in a file named "md5", but I don't consider this too much of a > problem). The SIZE lines will be silently ignored, if you don't want them, > but they can be used by those, who can take advantage of them. In the light of these new explications I can only say: Yes, go for it ! :) > > Regards, STefan > Thanks, Ady (@freebsd.ady.ro) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980923142003.17833B-100000>