Enforcing "DIST_SUBDIR/DISTFILE" uniqueness
Andrew Pantyukhin
infofarmer at FreeBSD.org
Sun Aug 20 09:31:10 UTC 2006
On 8/19/06, Roman Bogorodskiy <novel at freebsd.org> wrote:
> Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
>
> > I'd like to propose a policy to enforce a change in
> > DIST_SUBDIR whenever a distfile is rerolled in-place, i.e.
> > when checksum changes, but name stays unchanged.
> >
> > Moreover, effort should be made whenever possible to
> > make the old file available for download from an
> > alternative location.
> >
> > This policy will rid us of some fetch-related headaches.
> > It also will make it possible to share distfiles between
> > hosts with ports trees of different dates. Some rare issues
> > might also be resolved as a result of this. For one, ftp
> > mirrors could be configured to allow upload, but deny
> > modification and/or deletion.
> >
> > One thing I would personally frown upon is using
> > something like "fetch -o othername" to save a file with a
> > different name. It looks all right, but it prevents us from
> > looking for mirrors in an automated way when master
> > sites go down.
>
> What are you going to do with port already using DIST_SUBDIR (like e.g.
> gnome related ports)?
Leave it at maintainer's discretion. DIST_SUBDIR can be
multilevel, so I imagine something like gnome/rerolled and
what not.
> Would not it pollute distdir with lots of outdated
> dirs/files?
No, why sould it?
> How are you going to deal with cases when re-rolled tarball
> brings some security risk?
We've got many security risks in CVS. Should we delete them
all?
> Would not it break scripts/apps cleaning DISTDIR?
Nope, it would actually fix portsclean.
Please don't set bogus reply-to headers. Thanks!
More information about the freebsd-ports
mailing list