Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 17:53:43 +0200 From: "Julian Stacey <jhs@freebsd.org>" <jhs@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> To: Gary Palmer <gary@palmer.demon.co.uk> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bsd.ports.mk checksum Message-ID: <199508221553.RAA10455@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 Aug 1995 06:19:35 BST." <6794.809068775@palmer.demon.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. I run a current ports tree, invoking `make all' each day, to top up with new ports, in the same way one makes src/, works fine. I'm not bothered if someone upgrades to a new distfile, I ignore till a make clean. The ports tree & mk files actually support this quite well. > you have YET to suggest a fix to this situation! Huh ? Have you forgotten what I proposed: Back out the md5 invocation used by `make all' from ports.mk, Leave invocation on extract. > Yes, I agree that the checksum routine should not be run at every > step, Good, perhaps you can persuade Satoshi ? > but I think that your reasons are mis-founded. Suffice we want the same thing, why we want it doesn't matter :-) > Expect us to go digging and impliment the fixes Pointless me writing a patch till we agree what we need Eh ? Even then, better for you or Satoshi to do it, you'r the regular ports guys. `Too many cooks spoil the broth' I don't approve un-necessary working in other's backyards, I prefer to leave ports mechanism to others, & worry about my own area (Hylafax, Pbasic). > 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? You seem to have lost context or inference, & don't seem v. calm, so I'll pass. > > 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, Sigh - ports mk is what the proposal is all about ! > Either calm down But I am ! Even though Satoshi also asked me to calm down :-) (BTW: Ever heard the old joke about how to make an Irishman angry ? 1st Questioner: Why are all you Irish argumentative ? Respondent: We're not :-) 2nd Questioner: Why are all you Irish argumentative ? Respondent: We're Not. ... Respondent: We're NOT ! ... (With apologies to Ireland, which I like :-) Anyway, calmly :-) ... I aim to allow us to maintain an 800M ports/ online pre-compiled, but without the burden of an extra 250M distfiles permanently on line (IMO intermittent on line via a CD is enough), We're nearly there, we just need a tweak to the md5 invocation in ports.mk. (Having the sources permanently laid out in a tree makes a great way to explore & experimentally tweak code). > signature of a flamethrower Pardon ? I recall no personal abuse issued or received, The Issue: I propose we modify ports.mk so there is no md5 invocation by `make all' from ports.mk, but so there is invocation on `extract'. If you agree, please discuss it with Satoshi, who seemed less atracted to it, and come to a common agreed objective (a task description). If I agree with your task description, I will write the diff for you, if you want me to. So ... you only have to discuss & agree (& not even with me :-) & If I agree your mutual objective I'll do the work for you, (& if I don't, well, you wouldn't want me to write it, would you ?) Can't be fairer than that Eh ? Julian S
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199508221553.RAA10455>