From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 25 07:24:58 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7069D16A4CE for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 07:24:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ybbsmtp04.mail.yahoo.co.jp (ybbsmtp04.mail.yahoo.co.jp [210.81.151.172]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 99D7343D1F for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 07:24:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ayakokiko@ybb.ne.jp) Received: from unknown (HELO gorgon.near.this) (219.11.234.11 with poptime) by ybbsmtp04.mail.yahoo.co.jp with SMTP; 25 Feb 2004 15:24:56 -0000 X-Apparently-From: Received: from ghost.near.this (ghost.near.this [10.0.3.9]) by gorgon.near.this (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B5707F81; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:24:41 +0900 (JST) Received: by ghost.near.this (Postfix, from userid 100) id 8E7291932C; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:24:39 +0900 (JST) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:24:37 +0900 From: horio shoichi To: Kris Kennaway In-Reply-To: <20040225020325.GA60758@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20040221200856.GE51561@xor.obsecurity.org> <20040224.042616.c2b63568694ba1a5.10.0.3.9@bugsgrief.net> <20040224061140.GA40247@xor.obsecurity.org> <20040224.235412.e05ccefc82735f8f.10.0.3.9@bugsgrief.net> <20040225020325.GA60758@xor.obsecurity.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.9claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.8) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20040225.152439.1a5c09661a0c01c9.10.0.3.9@bugsgrief.net> cc: ports@FreeBSD.org cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: [kris@FreeBSD.org: cvs commit: ports/lang/nawk Makefile] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:24:58 -0000 On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:03:25 -0800 Kris Kennaway wrote: > > No, the port is broken for anyone who fetches a fresh copy of it. The > BROKEN tag merely documents this: the port must either be fixed to use > the new distfile or changed to fetch an old version of it. That's the > way we do things around here :) > > Kris > Marking as BROKEN has far stronger meaning than mere documenting. It makes others retrieve the port hard. Apparently it's worse than allow using only three weeks older source. If you are not encouraging people disregard your "document" you know a lot of better ways. If something is broken, it is not the individual port. It should be beyond each port's expectation that the first failure does not recover. And it is also beyond our expectation. The brokenness is the separation of fetch target that handle round trip among sites and checksum target that does md5 calculation. With current mechanism the trip never goes beyond first successful (in the sense of transmission) download. In other word, if the transmission itself (i.e., FETCH_CMD) does md5 check as part of its state then fetch target will just happily make the trip*. *One would argue fetch and checksum are categorically different things. Suffice to say fetch and checksum targets have been trying to establish feedback among the two for years but it looks rather logical to handle the two as unrelated independent subjects. So, as for downloading capability, I'm able to download older version of awk.tar.gz with make checksum command, although the first attempt from master site fails with md5 sum error. To me the port is not broken since my script, given as FETCH_CMD, returns md5 result to fetch target which in turn is able to trip to the next site. Thus, the port is not broken in theory and practice. horio shoichi