From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 4 20:46:01 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD42516A4BF for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp8.Stanford.EDU (smtp8.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4A743F75 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:46:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu) Received: from andrsn.stanford.edu (andrsn.Stanford.EDU [171.66.112.163]) by smtp8.Stanford.EDU (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h853jsqs011955; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:45:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (9f02bbe530ebfcfb3e97b0470d5a3159@localhost.stanford.edu [127.0.0.1]) by andrsn.stanford.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h853W29T014003; Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:32:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:32:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Annelise Anderson To: Matthew Hunt In-Reply-To: <20030905023534.GA561@wopr.caltech.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Bidwatcher port X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 03:46:01 -0000 On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Matthew Hunt wrote: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 06:40:13AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > Also, you should contact the port maintainer to propose changes to the > > port...that's what they're there for. > > Annelise did CC me (the maintainer) on her email about the port, I > just haven't chimed in yet because I've been rearranging the office > (including computer moves) all day. > > I don't have strong feelings either way about TIMEFUDGE. I agree > with Annelise that it's kind of a dumb idea in the modern era of NTP > timekeeping; at the very least, 5 minutes of slop is really a lot. > OTOH, I'm not sure that it's the job of FreeBSD porters to make > changes like these in an application's default behavior (going behind > the author's back, as it were). Opinions? > > Matt > > It was my impression that TIMEFUDGE is a product of the patch and is not in the original code. Nothing in the description of the port on sourceforge would lead one to believe there's a 5-minute time advance built in; and the amount of the advance is added in the Makefile. The original bidwatcher.cpp has no TIMEFUDGE variable. I've built it outside the ports collection at times and gotten no delay. Five minutes is enormous--it gives your opponents plenty of time to outbid you; and that's the whole idea of sniping--coming in at the end with a bid to which no one has time to respond. I agree it's not hard to change the Makefile--it's just that it's unexpected behavior. Most people use 12 or 14 seconds before the auction ends, maybe 20 at most. Annelise -- Annelise Anderson Author of: FreeBSD: An Open-Source Operating System for Your PC Available from: BSDmall.com and amazon.com Book Website: http://www.bittreepress.com/FreeBSD/introbook/