Hi Ryan,
On Jan 1, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jan 1, 2008, at 11:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Revision: 32441
http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/changeset/32441
Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2008-01-01 09:09:21 -0800 (Tue, 01 Jan 2008)
Log Message:
-----------
If checksum is mismatched, and in verbose mode, present a corrected
pre-fabricated
checksum statement to make it easy to update a port.
That does, of course, make it easier for people to just blindly copy
and paste, rather than thinking about whether they should be
changing the portfile checksum at all.
Yes, I did consider this argument for why it might not be a good idea,
but quickly came to the conclusion that taking away the drudge work
will hopefully give people _more_ time to consider some of those other
factors. I don't believe that this is a case where we're putting a
hair-trigger on a gun, or something; we're making the fife of a
maintainer easier. I don't think this will make it more or less likely
that someone will ignore the root cause behind a bad checksum.
Besides, I think 99% of the time spent in updating checksums is for
updated versions, rather than files which miraculously change in the
night. Once again, hopefully this will make it more likely that
maintainers will consider verifying the checksum against a signed
version from the distro.
James
http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/wiki/
FAQ#IgetError:checksummd5sha1rmd160mismatchforport.WhatcanIdoaboutit
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
