Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 03:48:52 +0000 From: Adam David <adam@veda.is> To: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> Cc: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami), freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bsd.port.mk on freefall Message-ID: <199612270344.DAA12011@veda.is> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Dec 1996 16:59:00 %2B0200." <199612261459.QAA15514@grackle.grondar.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Why do you not just do the " make makesum" on your machine before you bring > the port to Freefall? > > > That is a lot of unnecessary work for a 1-line change to the Makefile when > > the new version has already been tested elsewhere. > > Perfect excuse to build the checksum at home, too. One more file to be transferred during a potentially brief window of connectivity, and greater complexity of commands to issue in order to commit a trivial upgrade (requiring changes only to the toplevel Makefile). Remote cvs is usually sufficient for most purposes, but might be too heaviweight at times. In the worst conditions, "ctm commit" would be the answer. If freefall is to be excluded as a site for fetching distfiles and doing checksums, might it not be better to explicitly disable or remove bsd.port.mk? On the other hand for the sake of consistency and least surprise, the file could be updated to a functional version. The main issue here is one of manifest policy rather than incidental side-effects of omission. At present it's use is allowed but fails in unexpected ways. Individual ports may be expected to fail for version < current, but this is a failure of the ports system itself which produces misleading errors. That's probably all I have to say on the subject. Adam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612270344.DAA12011>