On Monday February 01 2016 16:31:59 Marius Schamschula wrote:
> > - portfile is extra complicated (does some craziness to generate a large
> > number sub-ports)
>
> Yup. Like mysql*, php, etc.
>
> Then there are ports like sqlite3 that use a non-standard versioning scheme
> for the distfile, w
On Feb 1, 2016, at 4:13 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2016, at 4:59 PM, Marius Schamschula wrote:
>> I use a short python script to automatically update most checksums.
>
> excellent.
>
>> However, even the small number of ports I maintain (OK there 69 of them) and
>> the no maintain
On Feb 1, 2016, at 4:59 PM, Marius Schamschula wrote:
> I use a short python script to automatically update most checksums.
excellent.
> However, even the small number of ports I maintain (OK there 69 of them) and
> the no maintainer/slowmaintainer ports that I version bump from time to time,
I use a short python script to automatically update most checksums.
However, even the small number of ports I maintain (OK there 69 of them) and
the no maintainer/slowmaintainer ports that I version bump from time to time, I
have found a dozen that have multiple sets of checksums, e.g. bash that
On Feb 1, 2016, at 4:36 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> How likely is it that two files would have the same oldchecksum
not very
> but a different newchecksum? Probably very small for sha256, but the shorter
> the hash, the larger that likelihood. That still won't be an issue for most
> ports th
On Monday February 01 2016 15:16:29 Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> I don't think this would be as hard to implement as you seem to think it
> would be.
Maybe, indeed. I've grown a bit more humble in this aspect, over the years ;)
> As a first try, a really simple s/$oldchecksum/$newchecksum/ would pro
On Feb 1, 2016, at 3:09 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> As an example of a potentially non-trivial file for automatic checksum
> updating
I don't think this would be as hard to implement as you seem to think it would
be.
As a first try, a really simple s/$oldchecksum/$newchecksum/ would probably
On Monday February 01 2016 14:15:07 Brandon Allbery wrote:
>Granting your other point, I still can't help but think that 60+ subports
>is Doing It Wrong somewhere along the way. Perhaps KF5 should be a
>PortGroup instead?
A PortGroup that provides as many KF5 frameworks as the current Portfile do
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:11 PM, René J.V. wrote:
> - letting `port checksum` update the checksums removes much of the
> interest of verifying checksums ("the checksum doesn't match, do you want
> to update it?")
I would expect that you would need an option to enable updating, and get
the curren
On Monday February 01 2016 13:16:03 Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>Maybe, instead of having your portfile reference an external file (with
>contents generated from port -v checksum), we should add a `port checksum`
>option that updates the Portfile with the (new) checksums?
I'd have suggested that myse
Maybe, instead of having your portfile reference an external file (with
contents generated from port -v checksum), we should add a `port checksum`
option that updates the Portfile with the (new) checksums?
> On Jan 31, 2016, at 2:28 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Sunday January 31 2016 18:53:
11 matches
Mail list logo
