Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 06:19:35 +0100 From: Gary Palmer <gary@palmer.demon.co.uk> To: "Julian Stacey" <jhs@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bsd.ports.mk checksum Message-ID: <6794.809068775@palmer.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 Aug 1995 02:01:13 %2B0200." <199508220001.CAA12973@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199508220001.CAA12973@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de>, "Juli an Stacey <jhs@freebsd.org>" writes: >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 ? Why does Satoshi have to ask my opinion? I really don't see the relevance of that question. My opinions have been stated already in public, which youself, Satoshi and everyone on the ports list have seen. >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. I would have to say it is the minority view. The ports mechanism is NOT designed to have the sources left lying around, in EXTRACTED form. It CANNOT handle this... (think about it - if it goes to the next version, there will still be a .extract_done or whatever lying around, and the system won't dare change anything, so you'll still have the old sources extracted). The ports system is decidedly compile, install and clean-up in one go, or be burnt. Making it otherwise would require taking bsd.port.mk to such a level of complexity that it probably would fail more often than it would work. Yes, I agree that the checksum routine should not be run at every step, but I think that your reasons are mis-founded. And throughout this discussion, you have YET to suggest a fix to this situation! Where's the patch to fix this problem? Why haven't I seen it? The ports system is a voluntary effort (probably more so than the main code tree), and I think it is unreasonable to go flinging mud (like you did in the message I am replying to) AND still expect us to go digging and impliment the fixes you want, when you have shown little inclination to do so youself. >Questions: > Was the extension of md5 checking to the `all' target proposed > & discussed first, or just commited ? I have no idea - I don't have the cvs log for bsd.port.mk locally. You have an account on freefall, why ask such a pointless question when it'd be easier for you to go find out the answer yourself instead of making other people do the leg work? > Was the author, reviewer, & committer one person ? See my last answer. And if it was, it wouldn't surprise me. Most of my work to bsd.port.mk has been done locally, and then committed to the tree to get feedback. To date, no-one has had a problem with any of my changes (other than my initial choice of names for the checksum stuff). > Should FreeBSD ports changes have a minimum of 2 people ? If we did follow this standard, no work would get done. Very few people who are `knowledgable' enough about the ports system to review such changes (myself included) have the time to review every change to the ports repository. I'm more than happy for someone to go an commit stuff, as it'd be their problem to clear up. > Is anyone exempt from the 2 person rule ? As far as I am concerned, for the ports tree, everyone is (perhaps excepting bsd.port.mk, which is too easy to screw up unless you know what you are doing). Since their name will be in the Makefile, the commit logs, and probably the $Id$ line, they are easy to chase up, and they only hurt themselves as their work will be viewed with some suspicion thereafter. And I have to say, this is fast becoming something that I'd prefer NOT seeing on any of the FreeBSD mailing lists (i.e. a slanging match). Either calm down, or take the next round off the freebsd-ports list. If I reeive another e-mail on this subject which still has the signature of a flamethrower, and it isn't in private, I won't answer it. Sorry, but I will not be responsible for propogating this in public. Yours Gary
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6794.809068775>