bin/34628: [pkg_install] [patch] pkg-routines ignore the recorded md5 checksums

[Mikhail Teterin]

середа 15 листопад 2006 15:05, Erwin Lansing написав:
> > The change was introduced to allow to determine, which of the multiple
> > ports installed the current version of the file in question. It is
> > trivial to modify it to compare the checksum in all cases, at the cost of
> > slightly higher overhead (MD5File called always, even if only one port
> > "claims" the file).
>
> Or maybe hide it behind an extra option to turn it all for all cases.

I don't think, it is much of overhead one way or the other, actually.

> > > > Anyway, what is the overhead exactly?
> > >
> > > Explained elsewhere in this thread.
> >
> > And promptly refuted in a follow-up... Have you missed it?
>
> No, that's why I'm not commenting on that here.

Please, be more explicit. Do you accept my refutal as such, or do you still 
think, there is "overhead" to talk about? And if you do accept my refutal (as 
seems likely), then why did you even mention the (incorrect) 
explanation "elsewhere in this thread"?

> > > Note, that my reaction was the same as sobomax' back in 2002
> >
> > Erwin, that so wrong... Sobomax has expressed doubt and asked a bogus
> > question. You should also note, that FIVE MONTHS passed between my
> > submitting the PR (and assigning it to Maxim -- March 2002) and his
> > expressing "the doubt" (August 2002).
>
> Sobomax' question is not bogus, it's the same one I asked you. You
> should have explained it to him instead of just ignoring him and trying
> to get someone else to commit it for you.

Neither you, nor Sobomax have ever ASKED A QUESTION. In fact, the audit trail 
had not a single question mark until the PR was closed. You both made 
(misinformed) statements. In the case of Maxim, I had good reasons to suspect 
BAD FAITH, so I did not try to argue.

> > Considering, that he saw the patch and the discussion of it in February
> > (2002) -- and requested I do the PR (a quote from his request is in the
> > trace), his entire participation in the matter should be discounted...
> >
> > At the time JKH was still with us, and since he has expressed interest in
> > the functionality, I simply transfered the PR to him.
> >
> > > and you then refused to give more information.
> >
> > ???? Please, quote a request for "more information", that you accuse me
> > of "refusing" to honor?
>
> Read the audit-trail.

I reiterate, that the audit-trail contains not a single question mark until 
Nov 14. I would've been happy to answer questions, but all I saw were already 
formed misconceptions.

> Did you actually try to read my mail, or did you just assume that the
> whole world is against you? Please reread my mail as constructive
> comments on a 4 year old patch instead of being paranoid. Now, can be
> get back to the code?

I did read your e-mail and found a grudging _implicit_ admission of the 
premature PR-closure, and an explicit blaming me for somehow being 
responsible for that mistake. And yes, after 4 years on the backburner, I DO 
want the Fingers of Blame to be properly oriented.

While the rest of the world is comfortably ignorant of my existence, my fellow 
FreeBSD developers can't read the 14-line patch submitted 4 years ago without 
making a number of mistakes -- none of them in the submitter's favor... So 
pardon me, if I seem a little jumpy.

Now, we can get back to your request, that I make the checksum comparision 
happen always. Give me a second...

Yours,

	-mi