Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:56:46 +0100 From: Kirill Ponomarew <krion@FreeBSD.org> To: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/archivers/9e distinfo ports/archivers/bzip distinfo ports/archivers/cabextract distinfo ports/archivers/dact distinfo ports/archivers/fastjar distinfo ports/archivers/gshar+gunsh Message-ID: <20040128125646.GB20343@voodoo.oberon.net> In-Reply-To: <20040128061406.B62139@blues.jpj.net> References: <200401272051.i0RKp7J6006306@repoman.freebsd.org> <53963718.1075241820@pouet.in.mat.cc> <1075238894.733.10.camel@gyros> <90411531.1075278266@pouet.in.mat.cc> <20040128085404.GE9290@voodoo.oberon.net> <20040128061406.B62139@blues.jpj.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Hi, On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 07:16:06AM -0500, Trevor Johnson wrote: > > > Hum, that I read, but it only talked of a new feature that we could use if > > > we wanted. The question is still there, should we (port committers) use it > > > in our make.conf and have the SIZE field present event if USE_SIZE is not > > > defined in the Makefile ? > > Unless I misunderstood, its purpose for now is just to let a user know how > big the distfiles for a port are, before the user starts to download them. > It's optional. > > > I don't think it should be policy, but having 50/50 ports with > > SIZE field will also confuse people. > > I think it would only cause minor confusion. Users can just be told that > the feature hasn't been deployed in all ports. > > So far I've added SIZE lines to 3% of all ports. What do you propose? > Do you want me to back out my commits? Do you want the USE_SIZE stuff > taken out of bsd.port.mk? Do you want all ports to be changed > simultaneously so they list sizes? What I am intending to do is to > gradually--a few categories at a time--add size lines to the ports > maintained by me and those in the care of ports@, altogether 30% of the > collection. If only a handful of ports have the information, I doubt > users will bother to look for it. I don't think you should back it out, I agree it's useful option for users with low bandwidth and maintainers should decide whether to use it or do not. *sigh* I'm thinking as before about /usr/ports/CHANGES... -Kirill [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAF7GOQC1G6a60JuURAjDAAJsG93/I88Z1PBWwEB5Rzs9DmA40uwCeMrM5 QxXyMRMRjlig0LIUCnuHpUw= =OL9Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040128125646.GB20343>