> On 29 Aug 2025, at 6:43 pm, Ryan Carsten Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> On Aug 29, 2025, at 11:01, Dave Allured - NOAA Affiliate wrote: >> >> What is the problem with just going back to rsync and hosting the >> uncompressed port tree? Then only the changed files would be downloaded for >> port sync. You could also offer a complete tarball available as an >> alternative, for new installs and full rebuilds. I feel like I am missing >> something here. > > We switched to using a tarball so that its integrity could be verified with a > signature. > > https://github.com/macports/macports-base/commit/476e4e15ff52ed1582cafa5d4be0476a6c05a5c1
Personally I have always favoured the git clone of the ports tree to the (default) tarball/rsync approach, as for me its just way more convenient. Why not just do this by default formthr ports tree ? I don’t think you would need any verification for this, as if you don’t trust what we get via a clone of the repo from github then we have much bigger issues, as for instance everything the buildbots build and distribute as binary installs are based on this approach, in essence.
