New Port Version Check feature
Vasil Dimov
vd at datamax.bg
Tue Oct 4 22:44:02 PDT 2005
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 10:50:57AM +1000, Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> After a long weekend of coding (long live the Queen!) this morning
> I have sent out this morning the first batch of emails to alert
> maintainers of possible availability of newer versions of the ports
> they maintain.
>
> The full overview of the first run can be found at
> http://edwin.adsl.barnet.com.au/~edwin/ports/
>
> It works by replacing the current port version with "logical" next
> versions: For foo-1.2.3 it tries foo-1.2.4, foo-1.3.0 and foo-2.0.0.
>
> Possible ceavats:
>
> - Some mastersites have been added to the ignore list. For example
> GForce websites have the habbit of returning a file which doesn't
> exist. And ftp://cr.yp.to/ has the habbit of being able to chdir
> to a file which doesn't exist, thus totally confusing LWP.
>
> - Webservers which return the content-type text/* get ignored. Why?
> Because of too many false positives from websites which don't let
> their 404 handler return the 404 status code.
>
> - It handles source/1.2.3/foo-1.2.3, but it doesn't handle
> source/1.2/foo-1.2.3 fully (thanks to tmclaugh@#bsdports for
> mentioning)
>
> - Ports with version numbers in the name can give false positives:
> lang/gcc32, lang/gcc33 say that there is gcc-4.0.0 available
> (thanks to gerald@ for mentioning)
>
>
> The following ideas are playing in my head with regarding to this:
>
> - Fix mentioned problems above.
>
> - Maintainers get an email only once per newly found file. This
> means that if url1/foo-1.2 gets found, it only alerts the maintainer
> once. Adding a new master-site (url2/foo-1.2) might give you
> another alert. Updating the portversion will give you alerts on
> all mastersites. But there won't be a weekly list of all previous
> alerts.
>
> - Possible integration with portsmon or distfile survey.
>
> - Full world domination, and a pony for everyone!
> (flatrate pizza possible where available)
>
>
> Edwin
>
Great!
Here are some simple things I have noticed:
It seems that the algo sometimes finds the development version and
incorrectly reports it as a newer version of the stable branch, for
example:
misc/foo (foo-1.2.3.tar.gz)
misc/foo-devel (foo-1.3.0.tar.gz)
misc/foo will be reported as having new version 1.3.0?
Am I right?
Shall it attempt 1.2.5 in the above example?
-- Vasil
More information about the freebsd-ports
mailing list