[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: make mdi and fetch/checksum
In article <20080711131157.GA570%britannica.bec.de@localhost> Joerg wrote:
: On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 02:50:05PM +0200, Dieter Baron wrote:
: > In article <20080711114512.GE648%britannica.bec.de@localhost> Joerg wrote:
: > : On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 01:34:15PM +0200, Dieter Baron wrote:
: > : > 3. or should we add a special flag to fetch/fetch to not consider it
: > : > an error and have make mdi set it?
: > : I prefer (3)
: > So that flag will be set when NO_CHECKSUM is set, and mdi will set
: > that flag or NO_CHECKSUM? Would you be willing to implement that?
: The flag will be set if mdi is called. FAILOVER_FETCH shouldn't run for
: unversioned files anyway, but I never tried that.
What are unversioned files, and how do they relate to checksums?
: > : and I would prefer if NO_CHECKSUM is obsoleted and all
: > : cases where it is being used are fixed to include proper checksums.
: > That won't work for packages tracking daily snapshots. I know you
: > dislike these packages, but they are useful and we will continue to
: > support them.
: Most cases of NO_CHECKSUM are now redundant. The remaining cases fall
: into daily snapshots (yes, I strongly dislike them and would prefer to
: see them in wip only)
What would that change (in the current context)? Our infrastructure
must also support wip.
: or simply broken packages where unversioned files
: or variable lists are used. But this falls into the same category as
: cleaning up all meta packages to actually use META_PACKAGE...
I'm all for cleanup and agree that if the list of distfiles changes
with option settings, opsys, or architecture, all possible distfiles
have to be recorded in distinfo.
Main Index |
Thread Index |