bsd.sites.mk: Do we prefer http or https (or both)

[Tijl Coosemans]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 14:25:13 -0700 Adam Weinberger <adamw at adamw.org>
wrote:
>> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 12:53, Adam Weinberger <adamw at adamw.org> wrote:
>>> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 12:29, Tijl Coosemans <tijl at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:18:18 -0700 Adam Weinberger <adamw at adamw.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 10:13, Tijl Coosemans <tijl at FreeBSD.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:18:51 +0000 (UTC) jbeich at freebsd.org (Jan
>>>>> Beich) wrote:
>>>>>> Tijl Coosemans <tijl at FreeBSD.org> writes:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:53:01 +0100 (CET) Gerald Pfeifer
>>>>>>> <gerald at pfeifer.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> As some of you may have seen, I have done a bit of work on
>>>>>>>> bsd.sites.mk recently.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> One question I ran into:  If a site offers both HTTPS and
>>>>>>>> HTTP, which of the two do we prefer?  (Or do we want to list
>>>>>>>> both?)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https first for people that run 'make makesum'.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It was made MITM-friendly sometime ago.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/324051
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ugh, can portmgr approve the attached patch?<fetchenv.patch>
>>>> 
>>>> If distfiles from sites with invalid certificates won't fetch for
>>>> end-users, they won't fetch during makesum either.
>>> 
>>> - Given that web browsers have become much less forgiving about such
>>>   certificates this is probably much less of a problem nowadays.
>>> - Possibly, many of these errors are because users forgot to install
>>>   ca_root_nss.  We can hold port maintainers to a higher standard and
>>>   expect them to have this installed.
>>> - Such sites should perhaps be removed from MASTER_SITES.  If
>>>   that's not possible FETCH_ENV can be set in the port Makefile.
>> 
>> I don't disagree with any point. Do you want to submit a PR so that
>> an exp-run of sorts can see how many distfiles we're talking about?
>
> Antoine reminded me that this only affects makesum, so I guess there's
> really no way of telling what ports this would affect. Either way,
> your reasoning is sound and you've convinced me. I'm good with this
> change; as you said, worst-case scenario, ports with broken
> MASTER_SITES can override FETCH_ENV or a toggle can be added.

Committed in r436081.