Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:57:45 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 249022] news/sabnzbdplus: Update to 3.0.2 Message-ID: <bug-249022-7788-rYmCV0mHyA@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-249022-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-249022-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D249022 --- Comment #5 from James French <james@french.id.au> --- (In reply to daniel.engberg.lists from comment #3) Now that I've had a chance to actually sit down, with the manual, I'm not entirely sure I agree that it states the use of USE_GITHUB is to be avoided. The handbook suggests it as an option when source tarballs are unavailable. It's softly implied, but it's by no means explicit one way or the other. For my own interest's sake, on an up to date ports tree: find /usr/ports -name Makefile | xargs grep MASTER_SITES | grep -i github |= wc -l 434 vs=20 find /usr/ports -name Makefile | xargs grep USE_GITHUB | wc -l 4528 Rightly or wrongly, ports pulling from GitHub outnumber those using MASTER_SITES almost 10:1 at this time. I find it hard to believe that most = of those don't have release files available. In this case, as the source tarball is only hosted on GitHub, I don't see t= hat it makes a considerable amount of difference changing to straight MASTER_SI= TES at this time. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-249022-7788-rYmCV0mHyA>