Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 09:57:15 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, d@delphij.net, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, Xin LI <delphij@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r345165 - head/devel/hgsvn Message-ID: <20140307095715.GB16063@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <531995DB.5000806@marino.st> References: <201402192351.s1JNplot033193@svn.freebsd.org> <20140307070536.GB48720@FreeBSD.org> <CE672AB00747E2D97403FA66@atuin.in.mat.cc> <53198F86.3020800@delphij.net> <20140307094336.GB3390@FreeBSD.org> <531995DB.5000806@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 10:48:11AM +0100, John Marino wrote: > On 3/7/2014 10:43, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > DIST_SUBDIR is most useful in few cases [...] > > 4) When upstream "rerolls" their distribution files. > The first time this happens, DIST_SUBDIR should get created with a > unique date. Otherwise you could have fetch mismatches when the port > distinfo is fixed but the old distfile is still on the system. Yes, I had thought about this case, but deliberately did not mention it as I believe that using DIST_SUBDIR as a remedy for upstream stupidity is abusing it. Instead, upstream should be educated, politely, yet persistently, about how to roll distfiles correctly. That said, while "distfile rerolling" case can indeed be solved with DIST_SUBDIR, IMHO it should not be recommended way. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140307095715.GB16063>