From owner-freebsd-ports  Fri Apr 25 03:59:48 1997
Return-Path: <owner-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA07651
          for ports-outgoing; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 03:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA07646
          for <ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 03:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id DAA06232; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 03:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
To: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
cc: ports@freebsd.org, jdp@polstra.com
Subject: Re: ftp://freefall.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/LOCAL_PORTS 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 25 Apr 1997 03:39:31 PDT."
             <199704251039.DAA24764@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> 
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 03:59:38 -0700
Message-ID: <6230.861965978@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> I'm talking about the "regular" backup as defined in MASTER_SITE_BACKUP.
> 
> What's wrong with using hub?  We can have one site in the Makefile,
> plus the regular backup on ftp.freebsd.org or wherever the user choses 
> in /etc/make.conf.  Just like any other port.

I don't want any more FTP sites on WC's T1 line, for one thing.  It's
overloaded and, given that we basically just finished shoving the
povray people off of it (for FTP), I think we'd look like hypocrites
if the freebsd project continued to use bandwidth for FTP when it
could just as easily put the bits on one of its mirrors (just as we
asked the povray people to do).

So I've been looking for a good excuse to end this practice for awhile
and, now that the freefall move has broken "freefall.freebsd.org" as
an FTP target, I think it would be an excellent time to do so.  Using
ftp.freebsd.org as the "fan out" point will also allow more mirrors to
get at these bits and replicate them more freely, thus hopefully
increasing the overall level of service to ports which need the
tarballs someone dropped off on FreeBSD's doorstep, as it were.

Anyway, I also suggest the following patch. ;)

Index: bsd.port.mk
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/share/mk/bsd.port.mk,v
retrieving revision 1.227.2.18
diff -u -r1.227.2.18 bsd.port.mk
--- bsd.port.mk 1997/04/20 20:15:57     1.227.2.18
+++ bsd.port.mk 1997/04/25 10:56:33
@@ -512,6 +512,10 @@
 MASTER_SITE_BACKUP?=   \
        ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/distfiles/${DIST_SUBDIR}/
 
+# Where "local" ports (e.g. ports that have been adopted) for FreeBSD go.
+MASTER_SITE_LOCAL?=
+       ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/distfiles/LOCAL_PORTS/
+
 # If the user has this set, go to the FreeBSD repository for everything.
 .if defined(MASTER_SITE_FREEBSD)
 MASTER_SITE_OVERRIDE=  ${MASTER_SITE_BACKUP}


> to do that.  (Or we have to edit all the Makefiles again when we
> change ftp3's name or something.)

Actually, if you can just find a couple of sites to "sign up" for
local ports bits then I see no reason why you couldn't point directly
at them, like you do for CPAN or GNU or the others.  We don't *have*
to indirect through DNS for everything. :-)

					Jordan