Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 02:01:13 +0200 From: "Julian Stacey <jhs@freebsd.org>" <jhs@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: gary@palmer.demon.co.uk, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bsd.ports.mk checksum Message-ID: <199508220001.CAA12973@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 20 Aug 1995 15:44:17 PDT." <199508202244.PAA03607@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Well, I can add a variable to make it not abort at failed checksum > errors. Is that ok for you? If you take the CDROM offline, you'll > just get a warning message. That's sounds a usable compromise, but I'd still prefer md5 didnt forcibly access distfiles, for ports that had already extracted succesfully. Could you ask Gary P for his views please ? > * I hope it wasn't just slipped through by a minority of one ;-) > Hey, cut these kind of garbage, ok? Is this too close to the truth ? Earlier you made a false assertion that I was advancing a minority view (re. md5), & based your intransigence to change on that assertion. If I had not debunked that assertion with a bit of gentle sarcasm, nothing would have changed. Questions: Was the extension of md5 checking to the `all' target proposed & discussed first, or just commited ? Was the author, reviewer, & committer one person ? Should FreeBSD ports changes have a minimum of 2 people ? Is anyone exempt from the 2 person rule ? Julian S
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199508220001.CAA12973>