From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 16 08:41:30 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8489106564A for ; Mon, 16 May 2011 08:41:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C7B58FC16 for ; Mon, 16 May 2011 08:41:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id LAA25635; Mon, 16 May 2011 11:41:26 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1QLtMk-0003VA-Bw; Mon, 16 May 2011 11:41:26 +0300 Message-ID: <4DD0E335.7060601@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 11:41:25 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110503 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Demelier References: <4DD0CC21.5050305@FreeBSD.org> <4DD0DCD3.4030906@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4DD0DCD3.4030906@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-viet-vps Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: patch for force fetch X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 08:41:30 -0000 on 16/05/2011 11:14 David Demelier said the following: > On 16/05/2011 09:02, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> >> I've noticed the following problem. >> If a distfile is updated by a distributor without renaming it (so that checksum >> and possibly size change), then more often than not the port build system would >> fail to fetch the distfile. >> An example: [snip] >> I think that this happens because the old version of the distfile is still >> present in download target location and fetch(1) thinks that it has a partially >> downloaded file and tries to be smart. >> >> The following patch simply tries to remove the stale distfile before calling >> fetch. Maybe there is a smarter way about this, like e.g. passing some option >> to fetch. [snip] > > make -DNO_CHECKSUM=yes ... is probably what you want, I guess. I fail to see why. Can you elaborate? -- Andriy Gapon