Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:51:35 -0500 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <baptiste.daroussin@gmail.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Allow folloing 302 codes in FETCH_ARGS in bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <20100719215135.GD47913@over-yonder.net> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007191426440.33255@qbhto.arg> References: <AANLkTilHMgoFbLo0wg1dc0zvow5QzuWPc1VxOqbZ3INB@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007191426440.33255@qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 02:30:06PM -0700 I heard the voice of Doug Barton, and lo! it spake thus: > > I've always wondered why we have that in the defaults, perhaps > someone who knows can answer? If it served a valid purpose in the > past, but does not any longer, perhaps it's time to remove it? My offhand guess (alternately, my hazy recollection from $YEARS ago; pick whichever is more flattering ;) is that one reason has to do with "brilliant" servers that redirect to an error page instead of giving a 404, and the user confusion that yields (when you get a downloaded "distfile" that fails the checksum due to being a few kB of HTML instead of a tarball). Of course, that still doesn't help the case that the "error page" is a 200 OK and then HTML... That said, I'm in favor of reconsidering it. I'm manually resolving redirects in the devel/bazaar-ng/ port on updates because of it, which is vaguely annoying. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100719215135.GD47913>