From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 23 17:01:23 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7615416A421 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 17:01:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 461AF43D53 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 17:00:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id jANH0a58072434 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 17:00:36 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id jANH0ag9072433; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 17:00:36 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 17:00:36 GMT Message-Id: <200511231700.jANH0ag9072433@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Pav Lucistnik Cc: Subject: Re: ports/89415: add some SHA256 sums X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Pav Lucistnik List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 17:01:23 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/89415; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Pav Lucistnik To: vd@datamax.bg Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/89415: add some SHA256 sums Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 17:51:58 +0100 --=-DPV14H054FgJvjzgO88o Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Vasil Dimov p=ED=B9e v st 23. 11. 2005 v 18:48 +0200: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 05:10:33PM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > > How does this cope with the maintainer approvals? Lot of those ports ar= e > > owned by someone. I don't think there's a general clearance to bypass > > maintainers on this change. > >=20 >=20 > Well, I filled this PR, thinking that no explicit maintainers' approval > is needed for this change. This my thought is based on the relevant > "SHA256 checksums" discussion on ports@ and on your unambiguous request: >=20 > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2005-November/027258.htm= l : >=20 > --- cut --- > > A diff from my ports dir can be found at: > > http://vdev.datamax.bg/tmp/ports_sha256.diff.gz > > (655 distfiles available) >=20 > Please send-pr it, otherwise it will almost certainly get lost. I was somehow under impression that the patch touched only yours and unmaintained ports. > I think asking portmgr for approval is the best choise for this PR. Probably. > Otherwise the diff must be split into small diffs for each maintainer's > ports and somehow (flood the PR database with 600+ PRs?) ask for approval= . > This sounds really horrible and thoughtless. Awwww. > Other solution is to leave the things as they are and use the widespread > "do nothing" strategy :-) After all there are more important things to > bother with, than the SHA256 sums. Sounds best. Also, could your tool be tailored to insert the lines to distinfo where 'make makesum' would insert them, not on the end? --=20 Pav Lucistnik Nazgul have poisoned your lembas. --=-DPV14H054FgJvjzgO88o Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Toto je =?iso-8859-2?Q?digit=E1ln=EC?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?iso-8859-2?Q?_=E8=E1st?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBDhJ4untdYP8FOsoIRAu8tAKCbZFpgjWsJUXxsfKQmlY1dj5iRFwCfQ7fy oA2DJm/ETioKhE/2mbsaSjA= =srlE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-DPV14H054FgJvjzgO88o--