From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 12 14:03:23 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E96106564A for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:03:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amdmi3@amdmi3.ru) Received: from smtp.timeweb.ru (smtp.timeweb.ru [217.170.79.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 635168FC43 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:03:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [213.148.20.85] (helo=hive.panopticon) by smtp.timeweb.ru with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MbEQG-0006tz-Ql; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:03:24 +0400 Received: from hades.panopticon (hades.panopticon [192.168.0.32]) by hive.panopticon (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AD60B860; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:03:20 +0400 (MSD) Received: by hades.panopticon (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 37B88108842; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:03:14 +0400 (MSD) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:03:14 +0400 From: Dmitry Marakasov To: Glen Barber Message-ID: <20090812140314.GA43649@hades.panopticon> References: <20090811152054.GB50944@hades.panopticon> <20090812004416.GA38480@hades.panopticon> <4ad871310908112018r14d439d7v46625beb5bc1e95b@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4ad871310908112018r14d439d7v46625beb5bc1e95b@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SourceForge changing file distribution scheme! X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:03:23 -0000 * Glen Barber (glen.j.barber@gmail.com) wrote: > > So, what do we do? May I commit the patch (+portmgr)? I believe this to > > be the best solution (even if a temporary one if we'll be able to > > resolve things with SF) as it will be clear which port uses the new > > scheme and there will be no variety of workarounds. > > Perhaps I've lost it in this thread, but is it only a certain amount > of ports affected? It appears the two SF ports I maintain hiccup a > bit, but are able to eventually find the distfile. This should only affect updating SF ports to new versions. I've checked your ports, they seem to fetch just fine. -- Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D amdmi3@amdmi3.ru ..: jabber: amdmi3@jabber.ru http://www.amdmi3.ru