From owner-freebsd-ruby@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 10 16:18:36 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98A47F35 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:18:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72935CE2 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:18:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.20] (unknown [130.255.19.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1693438BE; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:18:15 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <531DE5B6.3000003@marino.st> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:17:58 +0100 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: clutton , freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/187185: lang/ruby-doc-stdlib: fails to fetch, checksum mismatch References: <201403020322.s223MEs4078283@freefall.freebsd.org> <1394375957.51067.5.camel@eva02.mbsd> <531C7FB4.9080108@marino.st> <1394464922.70967.33.camel@eva02> In-Reply-To: <1394464922.70967.33.camel@eva02> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Ruby discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:18:36 -0000 On 3/10/2014 16:22, clutton wrote: > I really don't like that approach, because it's a documentation and > since it's fetcheble no one will assume that it's the outdated version. > It's better to remove that port at all. > > If you think that it should be done in that way, go ahead... > > I'm little disappointed, I updated that port to the current state > because having local documentation is always quicker then reading the > remote version. But It's just a waste of time doing updates like that. > It's better to read the remote version then. > > My proposal is that: let's update it now, then we'll see how often it'll > require attention. Too often means removing the port. I believe it rerolled at least 3 times in a month. The port is a PITA. The last time it wasn't valid for even a week. If the documentation were stored, it could be updated by the maintainer at regular intervals without surprises (say every 90 days) but then yes, it would be out of date by up to 89 days. Your call, but I've already seen this port in action. I know what is going to happen already. John