From owner-freebsd-ports Thu May 16 20:40:58 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mirapoint2.brutele.be (mirapoint2.brutele.be [212.68.193.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5190937B40F for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 20:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gateway.lefort.net ([213.189.162.78]) by mirapoint2.brutele.be (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AYA22912; Fri, 17 May 2002 05:40:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jsite.lefort.net (jsite.lefort.net [192.168.1.2]) by gateway.lefort.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE781577F; Fri, 17 May 2002 05:40:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jsite.lefort.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jsite.lefort.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 13FAA22E14; Fri, 17 May 2002 05:40:45 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 05:40:44 +0200 From: Jean-Yves Lefort To: Matthew Hunt Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposal: CVS as a fetch method for ports Message-Id: <20020517054044.6ffd97d1.jylefort@brutele.be> In-Reply-To: <20020516160539.B46782@wopr.caltech.edu> References: <20020517005544.63ae12dd.jylefort@brutele.be> <20020516160539.B46782@wopr.caltech.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.7.5 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.6) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 16 May 2002 16:05:39 -0700 Matthew Hunt wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 12:55:44AM +0200, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote: > > > "use cvs files as distfiles is not good idea." > > > > Could some committer tell me why it is not a good idea? > > Probably because, unless you "cvs co" with a -r or -D option that > always results in the same code coming through, the port could stop > building due to changes in the code. It could, but experience shows that it rarely does. I maintain a CVS port since a few months already, and I had to touch it three times during that period: two fixes were a change in the packing list, and only the last fix was needed in order to build the port again. I have already experienced many build failures with 'normal' ports; what is wrong in risking a build failure with a CVS port, if the different nature of the port is clearly explained to the user? When an user wants to build a project which is fetched using CVS, is it easier for him to manually checkout, build, note down the packing list, install, etc or to use a CVS port, downgrading to manual operation if the build fails? Not to mention that some projects even require the user to fetch the sources using CVS. See the following examples: - Uoti Urpala's XPilot (http://xpilot.sourceforge.net) - xirssi (http://irssi.org/?page=cvs) > Plus, I don't know how you would > assign a version to the port (for packaging and the database of > installed packages). I would just assign the version choosed by the program's author. There is absolutely no difference between a CVS port and a 'normal' port. I would like to start working on the patch I have in mind; further feedback will be highly appreciated. Best regards, Jean-Yves Lefort -- Jean-Yves Lefort jylefort@brutele.be http://lefort.homeunix.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message