Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:56:25 +0400 From: Anonymous <swell.k@gmail.com> To: Baptiste Daroussin <baptiste.daroussin@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Allow folloing 302 codes in FETCH_ARGS in bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <86d3uj3zli.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin3xoI-SxoPPdJ2KrlqdlrlLAgNhPY7kSIZ_Mpi@mail.gmail.com> (Baptiste Daroussin's message of "Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:36:11 %2B0000") References: <AANLkTilHMgoFbLo0wg1dc0zvow5QzuWPc1VxOqbZ3INB@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007191426440.33255@qbhto.arg> <AANLkTin3xoI-SxoPPdJ2KrlqdlrlLAgNhPY7kSIZ_Mpi@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Baptiste Daroussin <baptiste.daroussin@gmail.com> writes: > 2010/7/19 Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>: >> >> We have already had the discussion about this issue and we're not going to >> be creating ports that download random files from VCS repos. So yes, the >> person/team who is responsible for the port will have to provide a tarball >> of a known-good version. But that's completely unrelated to the idea of -A >> in FETCH_ARGS. > > I agree with I was just trying to get one more arguments against the > -A by default :) > > The real problem for me is that it makes fetch fail with some > authenticated proxies; (yes I know I can work around with changing > FETCH_ARGS in my make.conf, but I can't see any interest of keeping > the -A or at least I'm really interested in knowing why it is so > important to keep it. Wasn't authentication with `-A' option fixed in r209632?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86d3uj3zli.fsf>