cvs commit: ports/archivers/9e distinfo ports/archivers/bzip
distinfo ports/archivers/cabextract distinfo ports/archivers/dact
distinfo ports/archivers/fastjar distinfo
krion at FreeBSD.org
Wed Jan 28 04:56:54 PST 2004
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 07:16:06AM -0500, Trevor Johnson wrote:
> > > Hum, that I read, but it only talked of a new feature that we could use if
> > > we wanted. The question is still there, should we (port committers) use it
> > > in our make.conf and have the SIZE field present event if USE_SIZE is not
> > > defined in the Makefile ?
> Unless I misunderstood, its purpose for now is just to let a user know how
> big the distfiles for a port are, before the user starts to download them.
> It's optional.
> > I don't think it should be policy, but having 50/50 ports with
> > SIZE field will also confuse people.
> I think it would only cause minor confusion. Users can just be told that
> the feature hasn't been deployed in all ports.
> So far I've added SIZE lines to 3% of all ports. What do you propose?
> Do you want me to back out my commits? Do you want the USE_SIZE stuff
> taken out of bsd.port.mk? Do you want all ports to be changed
> simultaneously so they list sizes? What I am intending to do is to
> gradually--a few categories at a time--add size lines to the ports
> maintained by me and those in the care of ports@, altogether 30% of the
> collection. If only a handful of ports have the information, I doubt
> users will bother to look for it.
I don't think you should back it out, I agree it's useful
option for users with low bandwidth and maintainers should
decide whether to use it or do not.
*sigh* I'm thinking as before about /usr/ports/CHANGES...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/attachments/20040128/e254a0cf/attachment-0001.bin
More information about the cvs-ports