Prev: apache22 imap "ssl_onceonlyinit" error following latest upgrades
Next: Update "eiciel" port
From: Baptiste Daroussin on 18 Jul 2010 14:28
Hi,

What about removing the -A option from FETCH_ARGS to allow fetch to
follow 302 code.

It causes trouble when using some authenticated proxies.
It also causes troubles with github which is more and more used. Lots
of projects on github doesn't provides distfiles, they rely on git
tags automatically presented as distfiles, they only way to fetch them
is to follow 302 codes, the workaround is to ask developpers to
provide distfiles.

regards,
Bapt
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

From: Ruslan Mahmatkhanov on 18 Jul 2010 16:50
18.07.2010 22:28, Baptiste Daroussin пишет:
> Hi,
>
> What about removing the -A option from FETCH_ARGS to allow fetch to
> follow 302 code.
>
> It causes trouble when using some authenticated proxies.
> It also causes troubles with github which is more and more used. Lots
> of projects on github doesn't provides distfiles, they rely on git
> tags automatically presented as distfiles, they only way to fetch them
> is to follow 302 codes, the workaround is to ask developpers to
> provide distfiles.

Workaround is FETCH_ARGS in port's Makefile, like this:

FETCH_ARGS= -pRr


>
> regards,
> Bapt
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"
>


--
Regards,
Ruslan
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

From: Doug Barton on 19 Jul 2010 17:30
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:

> Hi,
>
> What about removing the -A option from FETCH_ARGS to allow fetch to
> follow 302 code.

I've always wondered why we have that in the defaults, perhaps someone
who knows can answer? If it served a valid purpose in the past, but does
not any longer, perhaps it's time to remove it?

> It causes trouble when using some authenticated proxies.
> It also causes troubles with github which is more and more used. Lots
> of projects on github doesn't provides distfiles, they rely on git
> tags automatically presented as distfiles, they only way to fetch them
> is to follow 302 codes, the workaround is to ask developpers to
> provide distfiles.

We have already had the discussion about this issue and we're not going
to be creating ports that download random files from VCS repos. So yes,
the person/team who is responsible for the port will have to provide a
tarball of a known-good version. But that's completely unrelated to the
idea of -A in FETCH_ARGS.


Doug

--

Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso

_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

From: Baptiste Daroussin on 19 Jul 2010 17:36
2010/7/19 Doug Barton <dougb(a)freebsd.org>:
>
> We have already had the discussion about this issue and we're not going to
> be creating ports that download random files from VCS repos. So yes, the
> person/team who is responsible for the port will have to provide a tarball
> of a known-good version. But that's completely unrelated to the idea of -A
> in FETCH_ARGS.

I agree with I was just trying to get one more arguments against the
-A by default :)

The real problem for me is that it makes fetch fail with some
authenticated proxies; (yes I know I can work around with changing
FETCH_ARGS in my make.conf, but I can't see any interest of keeping
the -A or at least I'm really interested in knowing why it is so
important to keep it.

---
Bapt
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

From: "Matthew D. Fuller" on 19 Jul 2010 17:51
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 02:30:06PM -0700 I heard the voice of
Doug Barton, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> I've always wondered why we have that in the defaults, perhaps
> someone who knows can answer? If it served a valid purpose in the
> past, but does not any longer, perhaps it's time to remove it?

My offhand guess (alternately, my hazy recollection from $YEARS ago;
pick whichever is more flattering ;) is that one reason has to do with
"brilliant" servers that redirect to an error page instead of giving a
404, and the user confusion that yields (when you get a downloaded
"distfile" that fails the checksum due to being a few kB of HTML
instead of a tarball). Of course, that still doesn't help the case
that the "error page" is a 200 OK and then HTML...

That said, I'm in favor of reconsidering it. I'm manually resolving
redirects in the devel/bazaar-ng/ port on updates because of it, which
is vaguely annoying.



--
Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd(a)over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: apache22 imap "ssl_onceonlyinit" error following latest upgrades
Next: Update "eiciel" port