On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 04:43:12PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote: > You don't and you don't care about that. I'm talking about > extending the infrastructure to support more fetch mechanisms. If > people are building from source anyway, especially locally managed > ports, if it breaks, they get to keep the pieces. You can't audit > things you don't ship, so why care? > > My suggestion was to add support to the ports system infrastructure > to allow people an easy way to locally package up stuff from > projects that do not release tarballs. I'm not advocating > eliminating checksums on everything, nor am I advocating accepting > ports in to the main ports tree that work this way, nor am I > advocating destruction of any existing tried and true methods. I'm > just pointing out that the infrastructure as it exists could do with > a handful of other fetching mechanisms to make life easier for > people making local ports. Ports they have no interest in > submitting to the main ports tree.
Two points: - if stuff such as this is visible from the main tree, some idiots will think they are actually there to be used, and we will have to say no again and again. - stuff such as this won't be used by us, won't work with mirroring tools, and will break sooner or later. Contrarily to what you may think, this is not free. This will require some maintenance. If anything, just to properly ignore the corresponding lines of code. If we keep that feature around, it means some other (actually desireable) feature won't see all that much love.
