From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 21 03:50:34 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 42B4D1065692; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:50:34 +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 C0D9F8FC52; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:50:33 +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 1MeL96-0001j8-BY; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:50:32 +0400 Received: from hades.panopticon (hades.panopticon [192.168.0.32]) by hive.panopticon (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A950B860; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:50:30 +0400 (MSD) Received: by hades.panopticon (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9BADC108842; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:50:21 +0400 (MSD) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:50:21 +0400 From: Dmitry Marakasov To: Pav Lucistnik Message-ID: <20090821035021.GA9771@hades.panopticon> References: <20090820023314.GF1295@hades.panopticon> <4A8CCC24.8050605@p6m7g8.com> <6B974976DD234EF08949F6A8@utd65257.utdallas.edu> <20090820164036.GA12998@hades.panopticon> <1250790054.45433.0.camel@hood.oook.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1250790054.45433.0.camel@hood.oook.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: "Philip M. Gollucci" , Paul Schmehl , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, portmgr@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Migration to new SourceForge url scheme now inevitable, solution 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: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:50:34 -0000 * Pav Lucistnik (pav@FreeBSD.org) wrote: > > > I've been following this discussion closely since several of my ports fetch > > > from Sourceforge. Is it safe to assume that some global solution will be > > > applied to the ports tree? Or are we maintainers going to need to submit PRs > > > for affected ports once a solution is agreed upon? > > > > This should be done globally, or else we'll end up with 90% unfetchable > > SF ports for 8.0 release. I'm preparing the patch currently. > > Once you have a patch, send it over for eyeball-review and approval. > Thanks for attacking this! Automated run is done, patch is here: [1]. It's not the final version, as it turned out to be more complex as I thought. There are things like SF:foo SF:bar (we can do this, right?), and ${MASTER_SITE_SOURECFORGE:C/$/:foo}, which should be fixed manually. Also there are slave ports, for masters of which you don't want to substitude ${PORTNAME} in some cases. There's a log [2] which lists potential issues. Tomorrow I'll look them through and manually fix remaining ports, run a quick fetchability test and present a final patch. [1] http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/sfp.patch [2] http://people.freebsd.org/~amdmi3/sfp.log PS. Btw, SOURCEFORGE_EXTENDED and SOURCEFORGE_JP still use an old scheme. Because of that SFE can no longer include SF, and honestly, I would like it to go away, as there are more than enough official SF mirrors. Also need to check if our SF mirror list can be extended with more mirrors, last time I had that `select mirrors' screen on sourceforge it looked like there are much more mirrors than we have. -- Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D amdmi3@amdmi3.ru ..: jabber: amdmi3@jabber.ru http://www.amdmi3.ru