On 8/29/20 5:52 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On Aug 28, 2020, at 21:52, Eric F wrote: >> When downloading/fetching a single (script) file from a Git repo. If I use: >> >> // ... >> >> That works, and I can verify against the checksums, etc. But is that an ok >> method? …or is there a better &/or preferred way? > No, that's not ok. Let MacPorts fetch the files for you. Set master_sites and > distfiles as needed. For unversioned distfiles, set dist_subdir; consult > PortfileRecipes wiki page. > > Don't populate the worksrcpath in the checksum phase. That's what the extract > phase is for. Thanks! Yes, I had a feeling that it wasn't, so that's why I wanted to ask. It is a versioned file (last commit of the file) - otherwise I can't use a checksum to verify it against. I do grep the rolling file though, for the version number to use with livecheck.
On 8/29/20 5:53 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On Aug 28, 2020, at 22:24, Jason Liu wrote: >> If you're fetching a single script file from a Git repo, then can't you >> simply use the built-in fetch keywords, set 'fetch.type git', and then set >> the extract phase to be empty? > Don't use fetch.type git unless fetching a distfile would not work. I tried using this (earlier), but I think it wanted the full repo, or at least an archive. On 8/29/20 5:24 , Jason Liu wrote: > If you're fetching a single script file from a Git repo, then can't you > simply use the built-in fetch keywords, set 'fetch.type git', and then set > the extract phase to be empty? > > -- > Jason Liu Thanks Jason. I've been using `fetch.type none` now, but I will explore that empty extract phase. - - - · Eric
