On Aug 17 10:19:17, m...@macports.org wrote: > > On Aug 17, 2018, at 7:44 AM, Perry E. Metzger <pe...@piermont.com> wrote: > > 3. There's no real documentation of the "size" parameter to > > checksums, and I'm constantly asking people to add the size. Note > > that I don't think "size" is a reasonable thing to require given that > > finding two files of the same size with the same SHA-2 hash is > > probably worth a doctoral dissertation at this point, but if we are > > going to require it (why do we require it?), it should be documented, > > and port lint should complain that it isn't there, and doing > > port -v checksums should spit it out if it isn't there. > > The size is also useful for giving user feedback > on the download time remaining.
On Aug 17 22:06:13, c...@macports.org wrote: > I think the idea of the size keyword is to start to use it to display > download progress bars for servers that do not send a Content-Length > HTTP header (or do not have an equivalent of such a header due to the > used protocol). How many of the total number of ports have their distfiles served by such servers? Would it be simpler to just not display a progress bar in those cases, as opposed to introducing another keyword? If the idea is to help display a progress bar (please make it in color), why is it a 'checksum'? We already have much beter checksums. curl it the one doing the download. If it can display a progress bar, it will. If not, please leave it like that. > This is currently not implemented. Reminds me of 'platforms'. Jan