From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Aug 14 11:39:37 1995 Return-Path: ports-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id LAA12536 for ports-outgoing; Mon, 14 Aug 1995 11:39:37 -0700 Received: from eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de (eikon.regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de [129.187.42.3]) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA12506 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 1995 11:39:24 -0700 Received: from vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de (vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de [129.187.142.36]) by eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA29667 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 1995 20:37:34 +0200 Received: (from jhs@localhost) by vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de (8.6.11/8.6.9) id SAA13657 for ports@freebsd.org; Mon, 14 Aug 1995 18:11:34 +0200 Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 18:11:34 +0200 From: Julian Howard Stacey Message-Id: <199508141611.SAA13657@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: bsd.ports.mk checksum Sender: ports-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk Satoshi, CC ports Perhaps it would be better if bsd.ports.mk checksum was only called to check a distfile, if it actually needs to be extracted ? Currently the make checks every distfile. When remaking the whole of ports this is slow, particularly when the distfiles are on a slow cd-rom ( mine is a v. slow mitsumi, ever since my scsi cd-rom died) I've tried setenv MD5_FILE /avoid_cdrom but that also omits the check when extracting new ports that should be checked. Another typical problem I often see is this sort: >> Couldn't fetch it - please try to retreive this >> port manually into /usr/ports/distfiles and try again. *** Error code 1 (ignored) >> No MD5 checksum file. ===> Patching for dmake-4.0 ===> Applying FreeBSD patches for dmake-4.0 File to patch: This is from running a make on a system that has no permanent internet connection, & thus is forever discovering a couple of new distfiles missing. Perhaps patch should abort, rather than hang, so a make -i of ports will not allways be doomed to hang ? PS I don't really consider editing an ever changing list of DUDS anything better than a horrible cludge ;-) (though I'm gratefull for the previous suggestion, & it does indeed work, but it's just too manual). Julian S