From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 20 20:10:55 2007 Return-Path: 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 07E4C16A417 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:10:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) Received: from mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com (mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.199]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0DD913C46C for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:10:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) Received: from vanquish.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com (vanquish.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com [192.168.2.61]) (SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by wingspan with esmtp; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:10:54 -0400 id 00056421.46A116CE.00002B83 Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:07:49 -0400 From: Bill Moran To: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Message-Id: <20070720160749.54fec301.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> In-Reply-To: <20070720200003.GC8179@soaustin.net> References: <20070720085855.99fb2109.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <20070720200003.GC8179@soaustin.net> Organization: Collaborative Fusion X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.3.1 (GTK+ 2.10.11; i386-portbld-freebsd6.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Overly restrictive checks in the make process 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, 20 Jul 2007 20:10:55 -0000 In response to linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon): > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:58:55AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: > > Why? Is there a legitimate reason why the fetch process refuses to > > download this? > > The intention of the logic is to warn a user, as soon as possible, that > they are spending time on something that will wind up being IGNOREd if > it is installed. There is no logic there to try to figure out "later > version of port"; it simply looks for "is IGNORE set?" > > Since some downloads take a long time, this does not seem too unreasonable > to me. > > If we moved the check later, the process of trying to install a port that > would be IGNOREd would be: spend time fetching and checksumming it, and > only then tell the user that they had wasted their time. I suspected there was some reasoning along that line. > I think the best we could do is add something analagous to how > DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES factors into it, and allow foot-shooting only > if demanded, but turn it off by default. That would be less annoying than having to constantly hack files in /usr/ports/Mk ... :) Even better would be for make to realize that it's only doing the fetching, and do it anyway. I don't know if this is possible, though. Sooner or later, the person running the system is going to pull out the foot-gun (you can only protect them so much) and waiting for a download that can't install is a comparatively small bullet ... -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ wmoran@collaborativefusion.com Phone: 412-422-3463x4023