Re: Filesize in Portfiles (was Re: [76684] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm/Portfile)

Joshua Root wrote: Kind of begs the question: Do we need this many checksums? md5 and sha1 are weak hashes, sure, but how about sha256? >>> >>> Apparently MacPorts prefers using sha1+rmd160 over sha256, and also it was >>> "too long" (fixed by automating, or using base-32) >>> >>>

Re: Filesize in Portfiles (was Re: [76684] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm/Portfile)

Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > This also assumes that MacPorts has a single location for all the distfiles > rather than the distributed collection of distfiles it enjoys today, since > there's simply no way to get upstream maintainers to sign their own tarballs. > For this and other reasons, I th

Re: Filesize in Portfiles (was Re: [76684] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm/Portfile)

On Mar 8, 2011, at 6:33 PM, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > On Mar 8, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote: > >>> A fine idea. You can revisit this when MacPorts decides to make upstream >>> maintainers start signing their distfiles. ;-) >> >> Planned or snarky comment? Its not a bad idea (eve

Re: [MacPorts] eborisch modified

On Mar 8, 2011, at 16:24, Eric A. Borisch wrote: > Hah! I knew someone must have already done it... > > Differences from a quick look: > * This one is probably slower (keeps calling port to extract information) > * This one will do multiple ports at once (so you can see mutual dependencies) I h

Re: Filesize in Portfiles (was Re: [76684] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm/Portfile)

On Mar 8, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote: >> A fine idea. You can revisit this when MacPorts decides to make upstream >> maintainers start signing their distfiles. ;-) > > Planned or snarky comment? Its not a bad idea (even if it would take years > ...) Mostly snarky comment. Apple c

Re: Filesize in Portfiles (was Re: [76684] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm/Portfile)

On 2011-3-9 03:13 , James Berry wrote: > > On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:29 AM, Anders F Björklund wrote: > >> Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: >> Currently, we are updating four: version (i.e. affecting the distfile), md5, sha1, rmd160. Just saying that it would be less clutter to have, say "SI

Re: Building the Guide produces an error

On 2011-3-9 05:28 , Marko Käning wrote: > When building the Guide with > > make guide-chunked > > I get the following error quite at the end of the process: > > --- > . > . > . > Writing index.html for book > guide/resources/xsl/common/stripns.xsl:10: element stylesheet: error : > Referen

Re: Minimum OS Versions Depending on Architectures

On 2011-3-9 04:49 , Jeremy Lavergne wrote: > Can MacPorts change the minimum OS it can compile for depending on the > architecture being built while also changing the supported architecture based > on what OS it's being built on? We build with MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=$macosx_version. There's no

Re: [MacPorts] eborisch modified

Hah! I knew someone must have already done it... Differences from a quick look: * This one is probably slower (keeps calling port to extract information) * This one will do multiple ports at once (so you can see mutual dependencies) * I think this will do variants, but it will have to be quoted to

Re: GSoC 2011: Call for Mentors

On 2011-03-03 19:57 , Rainer Müller wrote: > First, we need to apply to Google to be accepted as an mentoring > organization. Some prodecure as last year, as most questions remained > the smae. Here is the wiki page with the questions Google published and > our answers from last year (nevertheless

Re: [76786] trunk/dports/sysutils/coreutils/Portfile

On Mar 8, 2011, at 10:09, rai...@macports.org wrote: > Revision: 76786 > http://trac.macports.org/changeset/76786 > Author: rai...@macports.org > Date: 2011-03-08 08:09:40 -0800 (Tue, 08 Mar 2011) > Log Message: > --- > sysutils/coreutils: Add a note about libexec/gnubin/ >

Re: [76790] trunk/dports/net/xymon-server/Portfile

On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:03, pixi...@macports.org wrote: > Revision: 76790 > http://trac.macports.org/changeset/76790 > Author: pixi...@macports.org > Date: 2011-03-08 10:03:44 -0800 (Tue, 08 Mar 2011) > Log Message: > --- > net/xymon-server: > Bump version. > > Modified Paths

Re: [MacPorts] eborisch modified

On Mar 8, 2011, at 14:07, MacPorts wrote: > Changed page "eborisch" by ebori...@macports.org from 129.176.151.11* > Page URL: > Diff URL: > Revision 5 > Comment: Add link to depTree.py utilit

Re: Filesize in Portfiles (was Re: [76684] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm/Portfile)

On Mar 8, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote: > > On Mar 8, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: >> >> A fine idea. You can revisit this when MacPorts decides to make upstream >> maintainers start signing their distfiles. ;-) >> > > Planned or snarky comment? Its not a bad idea (eve

Re: Filesize in Portfiles (was Re: [76684] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm/Portfile)

On Mar 8, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > A fine idea. You can revisit this when MacPorts decides to make upstream > maintainers start signing their distfiles. ;-) > Planned or snarky comment? Its not a bad idea (even if it would take years ...) 73 de Jeff

Re: Filesize in Portfiles (was Re: [76684] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm/Portfile)

On Mar 8, 2011, at 6:25 AM, Anders F Björklund wrote: > Oh well, I'll just stick with the md5/sha1/rmd160 for now... > Can revisit, when/if digests escape from within the Portfile. A fine idea. You can revisit this when MacPorts decides to make upstream maintainers start signing their distfile

Re: Filesize in Portfiles (was Re: [76684] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm/Portfile)

On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:51 AM, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > Isn't size useful so you can differentiate between a truncated download and a > broken file? Sure, but that should be an implementation detail. If you do a port fetch, say, and interrupt it 3/4 of the way through, it might detect this and

Stale Ticket #27710 for port db46

This ticket is about mismatch checksum. I verified the checksum is correct and the reporter has timed-out over 3 month ago. I have attached a Portfile patch with additional checksums. Can someone with commit rights please commit and close #27710? http://trac.macports.org/ticket/27710 Thank you.

Building the Guide produces an error

When building the Guide with make guide-chunked I get the following error quite at the end of the process: --- . . . Writing index.html for book guide/resources/xsl/common/stripns.xsl:10: element stylesheet: error : Reference to namespace 'exsl' not in scope . . . Any idea what's

Re: [MacPorts] #28694: Xymon update to v4.3.0

On Mar 8, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote: On Mar 8, 2011, at 10:03 AM, MacPorts wrote: #28694: Xymon update to v4.3.0 - +-- Reporter: fclaire@…| Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: upd

Re: [MacPorts] #28694: Xymon update to v4.3.0

On Mar 8, 2011, at 10:03 AM, MacPorts wrote: #28694: Xymon update to v4.3.0 - +-- Reporter: fclaire@…| Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: update | Status: new Priority: Normal

Re: Ticket #28694

On Mar 8, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Francois Claire wrote: Kind reminder... Can someone with commit rights please commit and close #28694? Thanks, Francois. Done. http://trac.macports.org/ticket/28694 I think my message threading got me confused. I committed your polygraph patches thinking the

Minimum OS Versions Depending on Architectures

Can MacPorts change the minimum OS it can compile for depending on the architecture being built while also changing the supported architecture based on what OS it's being built on? I was working on a Mumble update and found this gem: CONFIG+=universal (OSX) Build a universal binary build of Mum

Re: Ticket #28694

Kind reminder... Can someone with commit rights please commit and close #28694? Thanks, Francois. ___ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev ___

Re: Filesize in Portfiles (was Re: [76684] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm/Portfile)

On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:29 AM, Anders F Björklund wrote: > Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > >>> Currently, we are updating four: version (i.e. affecting the distfile), >>> md5, sha1, rmd160. Just saying that it would be less clutter to have, say >>> "SIZE" and "SHA256" collected in a "distinfo" file,

Re: Filesize in Portfiles (was Re: [76684] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm/Portfile)

> So you *do* want the file sizes ? I thought it was without a > valuable usage case and better off being handled by libcurl ? An incomplete file is already detected by the checksums: we just don't report it as such. We should revisit the errors, or make a check for using curl::getsize() to see

Re: Ticket #28694

Dear Bradley, Thanks for having comitted the polygraph Portfile update. I couldn't reproduce your problem. I have a MacBook Pro running Mac OS X 10.6.6 and a Mac Mini running Mac OS X Server 10.6.6 and they both compile OK. Looking at your main.log file I've seen you seem to install the

Re: Filesize in Portfiles (was Re: [76684] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm/Portfile)

Jeremy Lavergne wrote: >> Sure, but that's only if you are poor and care about resuming downloads. >> Otherwise you can just delete the file and try again, in both cases... > > A less than ideal user experience. So you *do* want the file sizes ? I thought it was without a valuable usage case and

Re: Filesize in Portfiles (was Re: [76684] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm/Portfile)

> Sure, but that's only if you are poor and care about resuming downloads. > Otherwise you can just delete the file and try again, in both cases... A less than ideal user experience. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ macports-d

Re: Filesize in Portfiles (was Re: [76684] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm/Portfile)

On 08/03/2011, at 19:29, Anders F Björklund wrote: >>> Anyway, we don't want filesizes and we don't want sha256 checksums. >>> It's implemented already, but not worth the effort fighting about... >> >> Isn't size useful so you can differentiate between a truncated download and >> a broken file?

Re: Filesize in Portfiles (was Re: [76684] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm/Portfile)

Daniel O'Connor wrote: >> Anyway, we don't want filesizes and we don't want sha256 checksums. >> It's implemented already, but not worth the effort fighting about... > > Isn't size useful so you can differentiate between a truncated download and a > broken file? > ISTR that's what FreeBSD uses S

Re: Filesize in Portfiles (was Re: [76684] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm/Portfile)

On 08/03/2011, at 18:59, Anders F Björklund wrote: > Anyway, we don't want filesizes and we don't want sha256 checksums. > It's implemented already, but not worth the effort fighting about... Isn't size useful so you can differentiate between a truncated download and a broken file? ISTR that's

Re: Filesize in Portfiles (was Re: [76684] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm/Portfile)

Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: >> Currently, we are updating four: version (i.e. affecting the distfile), md5, >> sha1, rmd160. Just saying that it would be less clutter to have, say "SIZE" >> and "SHA256" collected in a "distinfo" file, since that's what FreeBSD Ports >> is using... ("make makesum")