Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 05:03:18 +0100 From: Gary Palmer <gary@palmer.demon.co.uk> To: Julian Howard Stacey <jhs@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bsd.ports.mk checksum Message-ID: <149.808459398@palmer.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 14 Aug 1995 18:11:34 %2B0200." <199508141611.SAA13657@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199508141611.SAA13657@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de>, Julia n Howard Stacey writes: >Perhaps it would be better if bsd.ports.mk checksum was only called to check >a distfile, if it actually needs to be extracted ? I'm not sure how this ever became the case, it certainly was never my intention to do this with the checksum mechanism, as I know from experience that doing a MD5 checksum on (say) emacs, when the distfile is on a CDROM, is painful. Also, once the port is extracted, there is not much the current system can do about mis-matches, apart from gripe, which is kinda pointless IMHO. >Another typical problem I often see is this sort: > >> Couldn't fetch it - please try to retreive this > >> port manually into /usr/ports/distfiles and try again. > *** Error code 1 (ignored) > >> No MD5 checksum file. > ===> Patching for dmake-4.0 > ===> Applying FreeBSD patches for dmake-4.0 > File to patch: >This is from running a make on a system that has no permanent internet >connection, & thus is forever discovering a couple of new distfiles missing. >Perhaps patch should abort, rather than hang, so a make -i of ports >will not allways be doomed to hang ? This has been discussed before, and I have yet to find a perfect way out of this problem, other than hacking patch, which is something I'd perfer to avoid if at all possible. People (Poul-Henning I seem to remember being one) suggested checking the patch before trying to apply it (there is some flag for patch to do this), but after looking at the manpage I wasn't convinced this was the way to go and (as usual) never had the time to go back and find the True Path to Enlightenment :-) >PS I don't really consider editing an ever changing list of DUDS >anything better than a horrible cludge ;-) (though I'm gratefull for the >previous suggestion, & it does indeed work, but it's just too manual). Yes, I'll admit it, DUDS is a tremenduous HACK :-) However, something like the DUDS functionality has loooong been needed in bsd.port.mk, and I have no regret about it's implimentation (being IMHO the cleanest option all round), although, in hindsight, DUDS is perhaps the wrong name :-) Gary
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?149.808459398>