Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 14:29:55 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> Cc: Ilya Martynov <m_ilya@agava.com>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Is there any reason for FETCH_BEFORE_ARGS? Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20010105142031.024c3c10@192.168.1.50> In-Reply-To: <20010105141009.G10329@ringworld.oblivion.bg> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010105135621.024d0550@192.168.1.50> <20010105133600.E10329@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <20010105124725.D10329@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <Pine.BSF.4.31.0101051416230.52070-100000@juil.domain> <20010105133600.E10329@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <20010105133919.F10329@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <5.0.2.1.2.20010105135621.024d0550@192.168.1.50>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 14:10 05.01.01, Peter Pentchev wrote: >On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 02:01:12PM +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > At 13:39 05.01.01, Peter Pentchev wrote: > > >On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 01:36:00PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote: > > >[snip] > > > > > > > > Hmm this is an interesting idea.. something along the lines of.. > > > > > > > > FETCH_BEFORE_ARGS=fetchprogram,hostname,args > fetchprogram,hostname,args ... > > > > > > > > e.g. > > > > > > > > FETCH_BEFORE_ARGS=fetch,http://server.needing.b/path/,-b \ > > > > > >err.. I meant.. FETCH_BEFORE_ARGS=fetch,server.needing.b,-b \ > > > > > > > fetch,server.needing.t,-t > > > > > > > > Then the do-fetch target should, for each URL, scan FETCH_BEFORE_ARGS, > > > > and use the arguments if and only if it finds a match on *both* the > fetch > > > > program and the hostname (not URL) from which it's currently trying > > > > to fetch. > > > > > > > > Something to think about.. > > > > Needless complexity, especially considering that `-b' is compatibility > > option which is likely to be deleted soon (IMHO, support for 3-STABLE now > > is very close to Attic). > >What you mean is, the whole concept of FETCH_BEFORE_ARGS should go? Of course no. Actually I was saying that per-URL fetch option is PITA and doesn't really necessary. >Or just that the ports that are setting -b shall stop setting it? >If it's the latter, then any ports setting any fetch(1)-specific options >shall still fail when another FETCH_CMD is being used :( Yes, but I don't see how this situation could be improved - neither POSIX nor SUSv2 says nothing about standard options for downloaders. :( We don't (and will not, IMO) support anything but fetch(1). -Maxim 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?5.0.2.1.2.20010105142031.024c3c10>