cvs commit: ports/www/gist Makefile distinfo

Wesley Shields wxs at
Thu Apr 5 20:27:17 UTC 2012

On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 03:51:06PM -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 4/5/12 3:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> > On 4/5/2012 11:52 AM, Wesley Shields wrote:
> >
> >> When distfiles change it is normal for a committer to review what
> >> changed between the old and new and at least note that in the commit
> >> message.
> > It's not just normal, it's required.
> can you point me to the conversation that was done a year ago when beech 
> broke this port?

There was no discussion I can find in the mail archives.

> seems what he committed was a 40x reduction in distfile size.  that 
> conversation might shed some light on the situation.

Looking at his commit (r1.4 of Makefile) shows he committed a change
such that it would only fetch the one file that was being installed. You
reverted back to the old behavior of fetching a tarball. This explains
the size difference - the tarball has some other things in it that our
port doesn't care about.

I would suggest you revert back to fetching just the ruby script (at a
specific commit), and just to be safe you should manually review the
diff between what you're fetching now and what was being fetched by the
port before you touched it.

You need to be careful not to fetch the latest version of the gist
script otherwise it will break at the next commit to that script in
github and we will have to repeat this process.

-- WXS

More information about the cvs-ports mailing list