On 1 Jan 2008, at 17:00, James Berry wrote:
Hi Ryan,
On Jan 1, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jan 1, 2008, at 11:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Revision: 32441
http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/changeset/
32441
Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2008-01-01 09:09:21 -0800 (Tue, 01 Jan 2008)
Log Message:
-----------
If checksum is mismatched, and in verbose mode, present a
corrected pre-fabricated
checksum statement to make it easy to update a port.
That does, of course, make it easier for people to just blindly
copy and paste, rather than thinking about whether they should be
changing the portfile checksum at all.
Yes, I did consider this argument for why it might not be a good
idea, but quickly came to the conclusion that taking away the
drudge work will hopefully give people _more_ time to consider some
of those other factors. I don't believe that this is a case where
we're putting a hair-trigger on a gun, or something; we're making
the fife of a maintainer easier. I don't think this will make it
more or less likely that someone will ignore the root cause behind
a bad checksum.
Besides, I think 99% of the time spent in updating checksums is for
updated versions, rather than files which miraculously change in
the night. Once again, hopefully this will make it more likely that
maintainers will consider verifying the checksum against a signed
version from the distro.
You already get this in debug mode (-d) anyway (or is it debug and
verbose mode (-dv)?).
Randall Wood
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://shyramblings.blogspot.com
"The rules are simple: The ball is round. The game lasts 90 minutes.
All the
rest is just philosophy."
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
