Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:18:36 +0900 From: horio shoichi <bugsgrief@bugsgrief.net> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: kris@obsecurity.org Subject: Re: [kris@FreeBSD.org: cvs commit: ports/lang/nawk Makefile] Message-ID: <20040226.011839.feba340b83b4f14c.10.0.3.9@bugsgrief.net> In-Reply-To: <20040226.040717.78715574.hrs@eos.ocn.ne.jp> References: <20040224.235412.e05ccefc82735f8f.10.0.3.9@bugsgrief.net> <20040225020325.GA60758@xor.obsecurity.org> <20040225.152439.1a5c09661a0c01c9.10.0.3.9@bugsgrief.net> <20040226.040717.78715574.hrs@eos.ocn.ne.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 04:07:17 +0900 (JST) Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > horio shoichi <bugsgrief@bugsgrief.net> wrote > in <20040224.235412.e05ccefc82735f8f.10.0.3.9@bugsgrief.net>: > > bugsgrief> Marking BROKEN against this sort of trouble makes the retrieval > bugsgrief> of the newer ones difficult. Better turn it off ? > > Simply updating the port solves the problem, doesn't it? I cannot > understand what you are trying to say, honestly speaking. If a distfile > that includes no version number in its filename is used, the port > should be updated when the distfile is updated. Or, the maintainer can > separately prepare the distfile whose filename includes its version > number by himself. Anyway, I think the problem is not due to the ports > infrastructure itself. > > -- > | Hiroki SATO > First, ports shouldn't need version number. Remember the fine mechanism that should retry automatically at checksum failure ? The problem here is that this mechanism doesn't work. I don't think this is the port infrastructure problem though, since there -are- ways to make it work, including limited successes (g?) of using /usr/bin/ftp and recent -SIZE mechanism. Second, adding custom version number alleviates the pain, but doesn't solve. Remember the trouble ImageMagick-5.5.7.16 initially caused ? Also, don't you see occasional help requests apparently having damaged downloaded files ? Finally, simply updating the port is not easy task. It's not simple, at least. <Flattery: Port maintainers pours a great deal of time, efforts, and knowledge unaffordable for us, for me at least, to let the port work./> I just don't understand why you try to devaluate their efforts down to clerical works of "simply updating" the port numbers and try to pretend there are no problems. horio shoichi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040226.011839.feba340b83b4f14c.10.0.3.9>