From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 5 20:27:17 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75274106564A; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 20:27:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wxs@atarininja.org) Received: from syn.atarininja.org (syn.csh.rit.edu [129.21.49.45]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47F7F8FC0C; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 20:27:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by syn.atarininja.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 72EFB5C3A; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:27:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:27:16 -0400 From: Wesley Shields To: Michael Scheidell Message-ID: <20120405202716.GA7258@atarininja.org> References: <201204050650.q356o8No010393@repoman.freebsd.org> <20120405125508.GA99623@atarininja.org> <4F7DAD0F.9020504@FreeBSD.org> <20120405185209.GA4439@atarininja.org> <4F7DEF5D.9020908@FreeBSD.org> <4F7DF7AA.3090503@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F7DF7AA.3090503@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Doug Barton , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/gist Makefile distinfo X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 20:27:17 -0000 On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 03:51:06PM -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote: > > > On 4/5/12 3:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > > On 4/5/2012 11:52 AM, Wesley Shields wrote: > > > >> When distfiles change it is normal for a committer to review what > >> changed between the old and new and at least note that in the commit > >> message. > > It's not just normal, it's required. > can you point me to the conversation that was done a year ago when beech > broke this port? There was no discussion I can find in the mail archives. > seems what he committed was a 40x reduction in distfile size. that > conversation might shed some light on the situation. Looking at his commit (r1.4 of Makefile) shows he committed a change such that it would only fetch the one file that was being installed. You reverted back to the old behavior of fetching a tarball. This explains the size difference - the tarball has some other things in it that our port doesn't care about. I would suggest you revert back to fetching just the ruby script (at a specific commit), and just to be safe you should manually review the diff between what you're fetching now and what was being fetched by the port before you touched it. You need to be careful not to fetch the latest version of the gist script otherwise it will break at the next commit to that script in github and we will have to repeat this process. -- WXS