From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue May 17 13:43:48 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E34C9106564A;
	Tue, 17 May 2011 13:43:48 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from wxs@atarininja.org)
Received: from syn.atarininja.org (syn.csh.rit.edu [129.21.49.45])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCABF8FC15;
	Tue, 17 May 2011 13:43:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by syn.atarininja.org (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id B931D5C3C; Tue, 17 May 2011 09:28:27 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 09:28:27 -0400
From: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org>
To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20110517132827.GA98772@atarininja.org>
References: <4DD0CC21.5050305@FreeBSD.org>
	<20110516120807.GA34582@night.db.net>
	<BANLkTi=MKn09fG6SQ2MPdRGNi6rJ=t8biA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DD1796F.2000305@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4DD1796F.2000305@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>,
	Diane Bruce <db@db.net>
Subject: Re: patch for force fetch
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 13:43:49 -0000

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:22:23PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 16/05/2011 19:53 Eitan Adler said the following:
> >> I've run into this myself and simply done the manual rm -f. This looks like
> >> a great addition.
> > 
> > what about make distclean  ?
> 
> Can you please elaborate?
> If you mean that I could just run 'make distclean', then my answer is
> why should I.  I.e. if the ports infrastructure already knows that
> there is something wrong with a local copy of a distfile (wrong size,
> wrong checksum), then it should just do the right thing and not annoy
> me to run some cleanup action.

While I certainly don't disagree with you here, I do want to point out
that keeping old distfiles around when the checksum is different has
saved my butt more than once. It's very useful to not delete the old
distfile. On more than one occasion I've had to diff old and new
distfiles to figure out why the checksums are different. If ports just
deleted the old one I may not be able to get it back.

I do like the idea of ports DTRT and just fetch the new file, but can we
have it move the old one to some place safe instead of delete it?

-- WXS