On Oct 27, 2013, at 5:45 AM, Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Oct 26, 2013, at 16:45, James Berry wrote: > >> On Oct 26, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >>> On Oct 26, 2013, at 14:09, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>>> Revision >>>> 112573 >>>> Author >>>> [email protected] >>>> Date >>>> 2013-10-26 12:09:19 -0700 (Sat, 26 Oct 2013) >>>> Log Message >>>> >>>> Allow the github portgroup to specify that tarballs should come from the >>>> archive area >>> >>> In what way does this differ from the tags and downloads? >> >> Hi Ryan, >> >> Well… partly because I was confused, and partly because github is apparently >> changing it’s mind. It seems the downloads method is obsolete, > > Downloads are deprecated. Projects cannot create new downloads, and downloads > are no longer shown on the github interface. However downloads that existed > before the feature was deprecated still exist, and they can still be > downloaded, so ports that use “github.tarball_from downloads” still work. > >> and it also seems that the tarball urls are at least deprecated… see >> https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/issues/18797 also. >> >> But despite the rumors of deprecation, the tarball/tags url would have >> worked for me but for a quirk of circumstances that made me believe it was >> no longer working at all. After your email I went back to check and >> apparently the tarball style url would work… but note that the checksum is >> different for some reason between the tarball url for a tag and the archive >> url for a “release”. > > Ah yes, releases. When I looked into this previously, the only difference > between the “tags” download and the “archive” download was the name of the > distfile and the name of the enclosing directory, and yes, as a result, the > checksums. For this reason I couldn’t just switch the portgroup to always use > “archive”, since that would have invalidated the checksums of all existing > ports using “tags”. > > Since the “tags” URLs still worked, I didn’t bother making a way to download > from “archive”. Do we believe downloading from “tags” will stop working in > the future? If so that would be a reason to move toward “archive”. If not, > then maybe we don’t want to clutter things up with yet another different way > to download. It’s not really clear to me whether the github folks have made a clear statement on this. I guess we should just continue with the status quo for now, recognizing that we may need to make a change in the future. I’ve reverted my change that added explicit support for the archive URLs. >> I’m not quite sure where to go from here. If we believe the brew guys, then >> we shouldn’t be pouring energy into the tarball urls, as they’re old news, >> and should be adopting the archive urls, which this change goes in the >> direction of. > > If we want to move toward adopting “archive” URLs, the best way may be to > switch the github portgroup’s default “github.tarball_from” from “tags” to > “archive” and edit all ports currently using the portgroup and not setting > “github.tarball_from” and set them to “github.tarball_from tags” along with a > comment recommending this line be removed and the portfile adapted > accordingly at its next version update. (No need to update ports without a > version update, since that would just cause an unnecessary extra distfile > fetch and mirror.) > > Things I wasn’t clear on yet: > > * Does livecheck behavior need to be updated for archives? I didn’t look into this. > * Some ports fetch from a git commit hash instead of a tagged release. What > needs to happen with them? I think that as long as these continue to work we’re ok. James _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
