Re: Add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk

2017-08-29 Thread Richard Gallamore
Just created a review[1] for the USE_GITLAB feature. If you would like
to test or provide feedback with another feature or perhaps something
that could have been done better it would be great to get feedback!

Best regards
Richard Gallamore


[1] https://reviews.freebsd.org/D12162
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


Re: Add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk

2017-08-24 Thread Richard Gallamore
Mat and I were discussing it here[1] last week. Have been working
on a draft but have been taking my time to make sure it is perfect
being my first addition to the framework. Still have a ways to go
before it will be ready for review.

[1] https://reviews.freebsd.org/D12060

On 08/23/2017 23:49, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote:
>
>
> On 21.08.2017 16:48, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>> Le 20/08/2017 à 23:16, Derek Schrock a écrit :
>>> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 04:28:01PM EDT, L.Bartoletti wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I would suggest to add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk
>>>>
>>>> Since, I think I am not competent to propose a patch, I ask for help.
>>>>
>>>> I have ports to create where the sources are only available on GitLab.
>>>> Like some other ports (audio/midi-matrix-lv2, audio/moony-lv2, etc.) I
>>>> can fetch source using a direct link. But, it may be nice to have this
>>>> possibility.
>>>>
>>>> As I can see, it can be similar (and maybe easier) than github.
>>>>
>>>> Archive can be dowload by this URL:
>>>> https://gitlab.com/${GL_ACCOUNT}/${GL_PROJECT}/repository/${GL_TAGNAME}/archive.${EXTRACT_SUFX}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ${EXTRACT_SUFX} can be zip, tar.gz, tar.bz2 and tar
>>>>
>>>> Is anyone already working on it or do you want to do it with me?
>>> Assuming gitlab remains API compatible with github.  I'm wondering if
>>> gitlab.com, github.com, and gitlab hosted site support can be merged
>>> into a single set of vars.
>>
>> You can stop here, because they are not compatible.  They do not differ
>> greatly, but enough. The gitlab API is akin to the previous github API
>> where the commit hash was required.
>> A USE_GITLAB is currently being worked on, though.
>
> Do you know who works on it? I didn't see anything like it, but it
> would be handy for me. Maybe i could help.
>
> Greetings,
> Torsten
> ___
> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: Add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk

2017-08-24 Thread Torsten Zuehlsdorff



On 21.08.2017 16:48, Mathieu Arnold wrote:

Le 20/08/2017 à 23:16, Derek Schrock a écrit :

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 04:28:01PM EDT, L.Bartoletti wrote:

Hello,

I would suggest to add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk

Since, I think I am not competent to propose a patch, I ask for help.

I have ports to create where the sources are only available on GitLab.
Like some other ports (audio/midi-matrix-lv2, audio/moony-lv2, etc.) I
can fetch source using a direct link. But, it may be nice to have this
possibility.

As I can see, it can be similar (and maybe easier) than github.

Archive can be dowload by this URL:
https://gitlab.com/${GL_ACCOUNT}/${GL_PROJECT}/repository/${GL_TAGNAME}/archive.${EXTRACT_SUFX}

${EXTRACT_SUFX} can be zip, tar.gz, tar.bz2 and tar

Is anyone already working on it or do you want to do it with me?

Assuming gitlab remains API compatible with github.  I'm wondering if
gitlab.com, github.com, and gitlab hosted site support can be merged
into a single set of vars.


You can stop here, because they are not compatible.  They do not differ
greatly, but enough. The gitlab API is akin to the previous github API
where the commit hash was required.
A USE_GITLAB is currently being worked on, though.


Do you know who works on it? I didn't see anything like it, but it would 
be handy for me. Maybe i could help.


Greetings,
Torsten
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk

2017-08-21 Thread Mathieu Arnold
Le 20/08/2017 à 23:16, Derek Schrock a écrit :
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 04:28:01PM EDT, L.Bartoletti wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would suggest to add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk
>>
>> Since, I think I am not competent to propose a patch, I ask for help.
>>
>> I have ports to create where the sources are only available on GitLab. 
>> Like some other ports (audio/midi-matrix-lv2, audio/moony-lv2, etc.) I 
>> can fetch source using a direct link. But, it may be nice to have this 
>> possibility.
>>
>> As I can see, it can be similar (and maybe easier) than github.
>>
>> Archive can be dowload by this URL:
>> https://gitlab.com/${GL_ACCOUNT}/${GL_PROJECT}/repository/${GL_TAGNAME}/archive.${EXTRACT_SUFX}
>>
>> ${EXTRACT_SUFX} can be zip, tar.gz, tar.bz2 and tar
>>
>> Is anyone already working on it or do you want to do it with me?
> Assuming gitlab remains API compatible with github.  I'm wondering if
> gitlab.com, github.com, and gitlab hosted site support can be merged
> into a single set of vars.

You can stop here, because they are not compatible.  They do not differ
greatly, but enough. The gitlab API is akin to the previous github API
where the commit hash was required.
A USE_GITLAB is currently being worked on, though.


-- 
Mathieu Arnold




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: Add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk

2017-08-20 Thread Derek Schrock
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 04:28:01PM EDT, L.Bartoletti wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I would suggest to add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk
> 
> Since, I think I am not competent to propose a patch, I ask for help.
> 
> I have ports to create where the sources are only available on GitLab. 
> Like some other ports (audio/midi-matrix-lv2, audio/moony-lv2, etc.) I 
> can fetch source using a direct link. But, it may be nice to have this 
> possibility.
> 
> As I can see, it can be similar (and maybe easier) than github.
> 
> Archive can be dowload by this URL:
> https://gitlab.com/${GL_ACCOUNT}/${GL_PROJECT}/repository/${GL_TAGNAME}/archive.${EXTRACT_SUFX}
> 
> ${EXTRACT_SUFX} can be zip, tar.gz, tar.bz2 and tar
> 
> Is anyone already working on it or do you want to do it with me?

Assuming gitlab remains API compatible with github.  I'm wondering if
gitlab.com, github.com, and gitlab hosted site support can be merged
into a single set of vars.

The main difference between gitlab, gitlab hosted, and github.com would
be the domain and a set of master sites?  Everything else can be shared.

If you look at www/tt-rss we're using almost the same URL from above as
the master site. This is a gitlab hosted repo.

Having some type of control var to tell ports of the provider 
(github GH, gitlab.com GL, gitlab hosted GLH) would control the master
site values.

 ...
 USE_GITHUB=yes # Use github.com and set master sites according
 ...
 USE_GITLAB=yes # Use gitlab.com and set master sites according
 ...
 USE_GITLAB=example.com/path/to/base 
 ...# Use gitlab hosted use URLish as master site
 
Or a single var

 ...
 USE_GITHUB={yes|GH|GL|example.com/path/to/base}
 ...

If set ports would expect the same GH_* vars from the Porters handbook
Table 5.5 
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


Add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk

2017-08-19 Thread L.Bartoletti

Hello,

I would suggest to add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk

Since, I think I am not competent to propose a patch, I ask for help.

I have ports to create where the sources are only available on GitLab. 
Like some other ports (audio/midi-matrix-lv2, audio/moony-lv2, etc.) I 
can fetch source using a direct link. But, it may be nice to have this 
possibility.


As I can see, it can be similar (and maybe easier) than github.

Archive can be dowload by this URL:
https://gitlab.com/${GL_ACCOUNT}/${GL_PROJECT}/repository/${GL_TAGNAME}/archive.${EXTRACT_SUFX}

${EXTRACT_SUFX} can be zip, tar.gz, tar.bz2 and tar

Is anyone already working on it or do you want to do it with me?

Thanks.

Regards.

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


Re: bsd.sites.mk: Do we prefer http or https (or both)

2017-03-13 Thread Tijl Coosemans
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:32:13 -0600 Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org> wrote:
> On 13 Mar, 2017, at 7:32, Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 14:25:13 -0700 Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 12:53, Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 12:29, Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:18:18 -0700 Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 10:13, Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:18:51 + (UTC) jbe...@freebsd.org (Jan
>>>>>>> Beich) wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> writes:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:53:01 +0100 (CET) Gerald Pfeifer
>>>>>>>>> <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> As some of you may have seen, I have done a bit of work on
>>>>>>>>>> bsd.sites.mk recently.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> One question I ran into:  If a site offers both HTTPS and
>>>>>>>>>> HTTP, which of the two do we prefer?  (Or do we want to list
>>>>>>>>>> both?)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> https first for people that run 'make makesum'.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It was made MITM-friendly sometime ago.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/324051
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ugh, can portmgr approve the attached patch?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If distfiles from sites with invalid certificates won't fetch for
>>>>>> end-users, they won't fetch during makesum either.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Given that web browsers have become much less forgiving about such
>>>>>  certificates this is probably much less of a problem nowadays.
>>>>> - Possibly, many of these errors are because users forgot to install
>>>>>  ca_root_nss.  We can hold port maintainers to a higher standard and
>>>>>  expect them to have this installed.
>>>>> - Such sites should perhaps be removed from MASTER_SITES.  If
>>>>>  that's not possible FETCH_ENV can be set in the port Makefile.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't disagree with any point. Do you want to submit a PR so that
>>>> an exp-run of sorts can see how many distfiles we're talking about?
>>> 
>>> Antoine reminded me that this only affects makesum, so I guess there's
>>> really no way of telling what ports this would affect. Either way,
>>> your reasoning is sound and you've convinced me. I'm good with this
>>> change; as you said, worst-case scenario, ports with broken
>>> MASTER_SITES can override FETCH_ENV or a toggle can be added.
>> 
>> Committed in r436081.
>
> Can you please add a quick blurb about this to CHANGES?

Added in r436086.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


Re: bsd.sites.mk: Do we prefer http or https (or both)

2017-03-13 Thread Adam Weinberger
> On 13 Mar, 2017, at 7:32, Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 14:25:13 -0700 Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org>
> wrote:
>>> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 12:53, Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org> wrote:
>>>> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 12:29, Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:18:18 -0700 Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 10:13, Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:18:51 + (UTC) jbe...@freebsd.org (Jan
>>>>>> Beich) wrote:
>>>>>>> Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> writes:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:53:01 +0100 (CET) Gerald Pfeifer
>>>>>>>> <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> As some of you may have seen, I have done a bit of work on
>>>>>>>>> bsd.sites.mk recently.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> One question I ran into:  If a site offers both HTTPS and
>>>>>>>>> HTTP, which of the two do we prefer?  (Or do we want to list
>>>>>>>>> both?)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https first for people that run 'make makesum'.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It was made MITM-friendly sometime ago.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/324051
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ugh, can portmgr approve the attached patch?
>>>>> 
>>>>> If distfiles from sites with invalid certificates won't fetch for
>>>>> end-users, they won't fetch during makesum either.
>>>> 
>>>> - Given that web browsers have become much less forgiving about such
>>>>  certificates this is probably much less of a problem nowadays.
>>>> - Possibly, many of these errors are because users forgot to install
>>>>  ca_root_nss.  We can hold port maintainers to a higher standard and
>>>>  expect them to have this installed.
>>>> - Such sites should perhaps be removed from MASTER_SITES.  If
>>>>  that's not possible FETCH_ENV can be set in the port Makefile.
>>> 
>>> I don't disagree with any point. Do you want to submit a PR so that
>>> an exp-run of sorts can see how many distfiles we're talking about?
>> 
>> Antoine reminded me that this only affects makesum, so I guess there's
>> really no way of telling what ports this would affect. Either way,
>> your reasoning is sound and you've convinced me. I'm good with this
>> change; as you said, worst-case scenario, ports with broken
>> MASTER_SITES can override FETCH_ENV or a toggle can be added.
> 
> Committed in r436081.

Can you please add a quick blurb about this to CHANGES?

# Adam


-- 
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
https://www.adamw.org


___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


Re: bsd.sites.mk: Do we prefer http or https (or both)

2017-03-13 Thread Tijl Coosemans
On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 14:25:13 -0700 Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org>
wrote:
>> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 12:53, Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org> wrote:
>>> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 12:29, Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:18:18 -0700 Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 10:13, Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:18:51 + (UTC) jbe...@freebsd.org (Jan
>>>>> Beich) wrote:
>>>>>> Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> writes:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:53:01 +0100 (CET) Gerald Pfeifer
>>>>>>> <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> As some of you may have seen, I have done a bit of work on
>>>>>>>> bsd.sites.mk recently.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> One question I ran into:  If a site offers both HTTPS and
>>>>>>>> HTTP, which of the two do we prefer?  (Or do we want to list
>>>>>>>> both?)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https first for people that run 'make makesum'.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It was made MITM-friendly sometime ago.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/324051
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ugh, can portmgr approve the attached patch?
>>>> 
>>>> If distfiles from sites with invalid certificates won't fetch for
>>>> end-users, they won't fetch during makesum either.
>>> 
>>> - Given that web browsers have become much less forgiving about such
>>>   certificates this is probably much less of a problem nowadays.
>>> - Possibly, many of these errors are because users forgot to install
>>>   ca_root_nss.  We can hold port maintainers to a higher standard and
>>>   expect them to have this installed.
>>> - Such sites should perhaps be removed from MASTER_SITES.  If
>>>   that's not possible FETCH_ENV can be set in the port Makefile.
>> 
>> I don't disagree with any point. Do you want to submit a PR so that
>> an exp-run of sorts can see how many distfiles we're talking about?
>
> Antoine reminded me that this only affects makesum, so I guess there's
> really no way of telling what ports this would affect. Either way,
> your reasoning is sound and you've convinced me. I'm good with this
> change; as you said, worst-case scenario, ports with broken
> MASTER_SITES can override FETCH_ENV or a toggle can be added.

Committed in r436081.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


Re: bsd.sites.mk: Do we prefer http or https (or both)

2017-03-13 Thread Mathieu Arnold
Le 11/03/2017 à 19:32, Eitan Adler a écrit :
> On 11 March 2017 at 09:13, Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:18:51 + (UTC) jbe...@freebsd.org (Jan Beich) 
>> wrote:
>>> Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> writes:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:53:01 +0100 (CET) Gerald Pfeifer 
>>>> <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote:
>>>>> As some of you may have seen, I have done a bit of work on
>>>>> bsd.sites.mk recently.
>>>>>
>>>>> One question I ran into:  If a site offers both HTTPS and HTTP,
>>>>> which of the two do we prefer?  (Or do we want to list both?)
>>>> https first for people that run 'make makesum'.
>>> It was made MITM-friendly sometime ago.
>>>
>>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/324051
>> Ugh, can portmgr approve the attached patch?
> I can't approve on behalf of portmgr but I'd like to echo this
> request on behalf of ports-secteam. Maintainers rarely verify the
> hashes that makesum generates.
>
> I wish we can go further and filter out non-HTTPS sites during makesum.

This should be pretty easy to do with the existing MASTER_SORT feature.

-- 
Mathieu Arnold




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: bsd.sites.mk: Do we prefer http or https (or both)

2017-03-11 Thread Adam Weinberger
> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 12:53, Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 12:29, Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:18:18 -0700 Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org>
>> wrote:
>>> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 10:13, Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:18:51 + (UTC) jbe...@freebsd.org (Jan
>>>> Beich) wrote:  
>>>>> Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> writes:  
>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:53:01 +0100 (CET) Gerald Pfeifer
>>>>>> <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote:  
>>>>>>> As some of you may have seen, I have done a bit of work on
>>>>>>> bsd.sites.mk recently.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> One question I ran into:  If a site offers both HTTPS and HTTP, 
>>>>>>> which of the two do we prefer?  (Or do we want to list both?)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https first for people that run 'make makesum'.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It was made MITM-friendly sometime ago.
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/324051  
>>>> 
>>>> Ugh, can portmgr approve the attached
>>>> patch?___  
>>> 
>>> If distfiles from sites with invalid certificates won't fetch for
>>> end-users, they won't fetch during makesum either.
>> 
>> - Given that web browsers have become much less forgiving about such
>> certificates this is probably much less of a problem nowadays.
>> - Possibly, many of these errors are because users forgot to install
>> ca_root_nss.  We can hold port maintainers to a higher standard and
>> expect them to have this installed.
>> - Such sites should perhaps be removed from MASTER_SITES.  If that's not
>> possible FETCH_ENV can be set in the port Makefile.
> 
> I don't disagree with any point. Do you want to submit a PR so that an 
> exp-run of sorts can see how many distfiles we're talking about?

Antoine reminded me that this only affects makesum, so I guess there's really 
no way of telling what ports this would affect. Either way, your reasoning is 
sound and you've convinced me. I'm good with this change; as you said, 
worst-case scenario, ports with broken MASTER_SITES can override FETCH_ENV or a 
toggle can be added.

# Adam


-- 
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
https://www.adamw.org

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


Re: bsd.sites.mk: Do we prefer http or https (or both)

2017-03-11 Thread Adam Weinberger
> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 12:29, Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:18:18 -0700 Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org>
> wrote:
>> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 10:13, Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:18:51 + (UTC) jbe...@freebsd.org (Jan
>>> Beich) wrote:  
>>>> Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> writes:  
>>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:53:01 +0100 (CET) Gerald Pfeifer
>>>>> <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote:  
>>>>>> As some of you may have seen, I have done a bit of work on
>>>>>> bsd.sites.mk recently.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> One question I ran into:  If a site offers both HTTPS and HTTP, 
>>>>>> which of the two do we prefer?  (Or do we want to list both?)
>>>>> 
>>>>> https first for people that run 'make makesum'.
>>>> 
>>>> It was made MITM-friendly sometime ago.
>>>> 
>>>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/324051  
>>> 
>>> Ugh, can portmgr approve the attached
>>> patch?___  
>> 
>> If distfiles from sites with invalid certificates won't fetch for
>> end-users, they won't fetch during makesum either.
> 
> - Given that web browsers have become much less forgiving about such
>  certificates this is probably much less of a problem nowadays.
> - Possibly, many of these errors are because users forgot to install
>  ca_root_nss.  We can hold port maintainers to a higher standard and
>  expect them to have this installed.
> - Such sites should perhaps be removed from MASTER_SITES.  If that's not
>  possible FETCH_ENV can be set in the port Makefile.

I don't disagree with any point. Do you want to submit a PR so that an exp-run 
of sorts can see how many distfiles we're talking about?

# Adam


-- 
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
https://www.adamw.org

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


Re: bsd.sites.mk: Do we prefer http or https (or both)

2017-03-11 Thread Tijl Coosemans
On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:18:18 -0700 Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org>
wrote:
> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 10:13, Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:18:51 + (UTC) jbe...@freebsd.org (Jan
>> Beich) wrote:  
>>> Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> writes:  
>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:53:01 +0100 (CET) Gerald Pfeifer
>>>> <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote:  
>>>>> As some of you may have seen, I have done a bit of work on
>>>>> bsd.sites.mk recently.
>>>>> 
>>>>> One question I ran into:  If a site offers both HTTPS and HTTP, 
>>>>> which of the two do we prefer?  (Or do we want to list both?)
>>>> 
>>>> https first for people that run 'make makesum'.
>>> 
>>> It was made MITM-friendly sometime ago.
>>> 
>>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/324051  
>> 
>> Ugh, can portmgr approve the attached
>> patch?___  
> 
> If distfiles from sites with invalid certificates won't fetch for
> end-users, they won't fetch during makesum either.

- Given that web browsers have become much less forgiving about such
  certificates this is probably much less of a problem nowadays.
- Possibly, many of these errors are because users forgot to install
  ca_root_nss.  We can hold port maintainers to a higher standard and
  expect them to have this installed.
- Such sites should perhaps be removed from MASTER_SITES.  If that's not
  possible FETCH_ENV can be set in the port Makefile.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


Re: bsd.sites.mk: Do we prefer http or https (or both)

2017-03-11 Thread Eitan Adler
On 11 March 2017 at 09:13, Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:18:51 + (UTC) jbe...@freebsd.org (Jan Beich) wrote:
>> Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> writes:
>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:53:01 +0100 (CET) Gerald Pfeifer 
>>> <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote:
>>>> As some of you may have seen, I have done a bit of work on
>>>> bsd.sites.mk recently.
>>>>
>>>> One question I ran into:  If a site offers both HTTPS and HTTP,
>>>> which of the two do we prefer?  (Or do we want to list both?)
>>>
>>> https first for people that run 'make makesum'.
>>
>> It was made MITM-friendly sometime ago.
>>
>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/324051
>
> Ugh, can portmgr approve the attached patch?

I can't approve on behalf of portmgr but I'd like to echo this
request on behalf of ports-secteam. Maintainers rarely verify the
hashes that makesum generates.

I wish we can go further and filter out non-HTTPS sites during makesum.


-- 
Eitan Adler
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


Re: bsd.sites.mk: Do we prefer http or https (or both)

2017-03-11 Thread Adam Weinberger
> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 10:45, Gerald Pfeifer  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017, Jan Beich wrote:
>>> https first for people that run 'make makesum'.
>> It was made MITM-friendly sometime ago.
>> 
>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/324051
> 
> With that, isn't https pretty pointless?  I guess I'll leave
> things as are, then, for that mirror that offers both.
> 
> Another question on "https first", Tijl.  Some MASTER_SITEs
> have a dozen entries or more, and I always thought that the
> infrastructure picks one of these randomly every time.  In
> some tests I did today with two sites (one https, one http)
> it _always_ picked the first, confirming your point.  Or is
> that only the case for `make makesum`?
> 
> Gerald

That's activated by RANDOMIZE_MASTER_SITES.

# Adam


-- 
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
https://www.adamw.org


___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


Re: bsd.sites.mk: Do we prefer http or https (or both)

2017-03-11 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
On Sat, 11 Mar 2017, Jan Beich wrote:
>> https first for people that run 'make makesum'.
> It was made MITM-friendly sometime ago.
>
> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/324051

With that, isn't https pretty pointless?  I guess I'll leave
things as are, then, for that mirror that offers both.
 
Another question on "https first", Tijl.  Some MASTER_SITEs
have a dozen entries or more, and I always thought that the
infrastructure picks one of these randomly every time.  In
some tests I did today with two sites (one https, one http)
it _always_ picked the first, confirming your point.  Or is
that only the case for `make makesum`?

Gerald
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


Re: bsd.sites.mk: Do we prefer http or https (or both)

2017-03-11 Thread Adam Weinberger
> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 10:13, Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:18:51 + (UTC) jbe...@freebsd.org (Jan Beich) wrote:
>> Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> writes:
>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:53:01 +0100 (CET) Gerald Pfeifer 
>>> <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote:
>>>> As some of you may have seen, I have done a bit of work on
>>>> bsd.sites.mk recently.
>>>> 
>>>> One question I ran into:  If a site offers both HTTPS and HTTP, 
>>>> which of the two do we prefer?  (Or do we want to list both?)  
>>> 
>>> https first for people that run 'make makesum'.  
>> 
>> It was made MITM-friendly sometime ago.
>> 
>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/324051
> 
> Ugh, can portmgr approve the attached 
> patch?___

If distfiles from sites with invalid certificates won't fetch for end-users, 
they won't fetch during makesum either.

# Adam


-- 
Adam Weinberger
ad...@adamw.org
https://www.adamw.org


___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


Re: bsd.sites.mk: Do we prefer http or https (or both)

2017-03-11 Thread Tijl Coosemans
On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:18:51 + (UTC) jbe...@freebsd.org (Jan Beich) wrote:
> Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> writes:
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:53:01 +0100 (CET) Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> As some of you may have seen, I have done a bit of work on
>>> bsd.sites.mk recently.
>>> 
>>> One question I ran into:  If a site offers both HTTPS and HTTP, 
>>> which of the two do we prefer?  (Or do we want to list both?)  
>>
>> https first for people that run 'make makesum'.  
> 
> It was made MITM-friendly sometime ago.
> 
> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/324051

Ugh, can portmgr approve the attached patch?Index: Mk/bsd.port.mk
===
--- Mk/bsd.port.mk	(revision 435950)
+++ Mk/bsd.port.mk	(working copy)
@@ -2007,7 +2007,9 @@ BUILD_FAIL_MESSAGE+=	Try to set MAKE_JOB
 
 .include "${PORTSDIR}/Mk/bsd.ccache.mk"
 
+.if !make(makesum)
 FETCH_ENV?=		SSL_NO_VERIFY_PEER=1 SSL_NO_VERIFY_HOSTNAME=1
+.endif
 FETCH_BINARY?=	/usr/bin/fetch
 FETCH_ARGS?=	-Fpr
 FETCH_REGET?=	1
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: bsd.sites.mk: Do we prefer http or https (or both)

2017-03-11 Thread Jan Beich
Tijl Coosemans <t...@freebsd.org> writes:

> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:53:01 +0100 (CET) Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> As some of you may have seen, I have done a bit of work on
>> bsd.sites.mk recently.
>> 
>> One question I ran into:  If a site offers both HTTPS and HTTP, 
>> which of the two do we prefer?  (Or do we want to list both?)
>
> https first for people that run 'make makesum'.

It was made MITM-friendly sometime ago.

https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/324051
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


Re: bsd.sites.mk: Do we prefer http or https (or both)

2017-03-11 Thread Tijl Coosemans
On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 10:53:01 +0100 (CET) Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com> 
wrote:
> As some of you may have seen, I have done a bit of work on
> bsd.sites.mk recently.
> 
> One question I ran into:  If a site offers both HTTPS and HTTP, 
> which of the two do we prefer?  (Or do we want to list both?)

https first for people that run 'make makesum'.
http second for people that can't use https.

For pkg-descr WWW I always use https if available.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


bsd.sites.mk: Do we prefer http or https (or both)

2017-03-11 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
As some of you may have seen, I have done a bit of work on
bsd.sites.mk recently.

One question I ran into:  If a site offers both HTTPS and HTTP, 
which of the two do we prefer?  (Or do we want to list both?)

Gerald @FreeBSD.org
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


Mk/bsd.sites.mk add NetBSD path to fix dns/dlint/Makefile fetch BROKEN

2015-12-14 Thread Julian H. Stacey
Hi ports-...@freebsd.org
cc: po...@freebsd.org

I suggest ports-mgr@ add a distfiles repository path to Mk/bsd.sites.mk
which would allow dns/lint [& perhaps other ports ?] to remove BROKEN=

*** current/ports/dns/dlint/MakefileMon Dec 14 12:45:45 2015
--- current/ports/dns/dlint/MakefileMon Dec 14 12:45:58 2015
***
*** 11,17 
  MAINTAINER=   jlaff...@freebsd.org
  COMMENT=  Lint for DNS zones (Domain Name Server zone verification 
utility)
  
! BROKEN=   unfetchable
  USES= shebangfix
  NO_BUILD= yes
  
--- 11,25 
  MAINTAINER=   jlaff...@freebsd.org
  COMMENT=  Lint for DNS zones (Domain Name Server zone verification 
utility)
  
! # BROKEN= unfetchable
! # My (jhs@) make.conf adds 
http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/distfiles/${DIST_SUBDIR}/
! # which works OK as shown Mon Dec 14 12:51:15 CET 2015
! # requesting http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/distfiles/dlint1.4.0.tar.gz
! # remote size / mtime: 23007 / 974584800
! # dlint1.4.0.tar.gz 100% of   22 kB   96 kBps 
00m00s
! # Consider adding
! # http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/distfiles/%SUBDIR%/
! # to Mk/bsd.sites.mk
  USES= shebangfix
  NO_BUILD= yes
  

Cheers,
Julian
-- 
Julian Stacey,  BSD Linux Unix Sys. Eng. Consultant Munich http://berklix.com
 Reply After previous text to preserve context, as in a play script.
 Indent previous text with >Insert new lines before 80 chars.
 Use plain text, Not quoted-printable, Not HTML, Not base64, Not MS.doc.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


Re: Mk/bsd.sites.mk add NetBSD path to fix dns/dlint/Makefile fetch BROKEN

2015-12-14 Thread Chris H
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:15:02 +0100 "Julian H. Stacey" <j...@berklix.com> wrote

> Hi ports-...@freebsd.org
> cc: po...@freebsd.org
> 
> I suggest ports-mgr@ add a distfiles repository path to Mk/bsd.sites.mk
> which would allow dns/lint [& perhaps other ports ?] to remove BROKEN=
> 
> *** current/ports/dns/dlint/MakefileMon Dec 14 12:45:45 2015
> --- current/ports/dns/dlint/MakefileMon Dec 14 12:45:58 2015
> ***
> *** 11,17 
>   MAINTAINER=jlaff...@freebsd.org
>   COMMENT=Lint for DNS zones (Domain Name Server zone verification
> utility)   
>
> ! BROKEN=unfetchable
>   USES=shebangfix
>   NO_BUILD=yes
>   
> --- 11,25 
>   MAINTAINER=jlaff...@freebsd.org
>   COMMENT=Lint for DNS zones (Domain Name Server zone verification
> utility)   
>
> ! # BROKEN=unfetchable
> ! # My (jhs@) make.conf adds
> http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/distfiles/${DIST_SUBDIR}/ ! # which works OK
> as shown Mon Dec 14 12:51:15 CET 2015 ! # requesting
> http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/distfiles/dlint1.4.0.tar.gz ! # remote size
> / mtime: 23007 / 974584800 ! # dlint1.4.0.tar.gz
> 100% of   22 kB   96 kBps 00m00s ! # Consider adding
> ! # http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/distfiles/%SUBDIR%/
> ! # to Mk/bsd.sites.mk
>   USES=shebangfix
>   NO_BUILD=yes
>   
> 
> Cheers,
> Julian

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205334

--Chris


___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


Mk/bsd.sites.mk add NetBSD path to fix dns/dlint/Makefile fetch BROKEN (fwd)

2015-12-14 Thread Julian H. Stacey
Repost with ports-mgr@ typo fixed to portsmgr@

Hi ports...@freebsd.org
cc: po...@freebsd.org

I suggest portsmgr@ add a distfiles repository path to Mk/bsd.sites.mk
which would allow dns/lint [& perhaps other ports ?] to remove BROKEN=

*** current/ports/dns/dlint/MakefileMon Dec 14 12:45:45 2015
- --- current/ports/dns/dlint/Makefile  Mon Dec 14 12:45:58 2015
***
*** 11,17 
  MAINTAINER=   jlaff...@freebsd.org
  COMMENT=  Lint for DNS zones (Domain Name Server zone verification 
utility)
  
! BROKEN=   unfetchable
  USES= shebangfix
  NO_BUILD= yes
  
- --- 11,25 
  MAINTAINER=   jlaff...@freebsd.org
  COMMENT=  Lint for DNS zones (Domain Name Server zone verification 
utility)
  
! # BROKEN= unfetchable
! # My (jhs@) make.conf adds 
http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/distfiles/${DIST_SUBDIR}/
! # which works OK as shown Mon Dec 14 12:51:15 CET 2015
! # requesting http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/distfiles/dlint1.4.0.tar.gz
! # remote size / mtime: 23007 / 974584800
! # dlint1.4.0.tar.gz 100% of   22 kB   96 kBps 
00m00s
! # Consider adding
! # http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/distfiles/%SUBDIR%/
! # to Mk/bsd.sites.mk
  USES= shebangfix
  NO_BUILD= yes
  

Cheers,
Julian
- -- 
Julian Stacey,  BSD Linux Unix Sys. Eng. Consultant Munich http://berklix.com
 Reply After previous text to preserve context, as in a play script.
 Indent previous text with >Insert new lines before 80 chars.
 Use plain text, Not quoted-printable, Not HTML, Not base64, Not MS.doc.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"


[Bug 199447] Mk/bsd.sites.mk re-introduce WORKING MASTER_SITE_COMP_SOURCES list

2015-06-14 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199447

Kubilay Kocak ko...@freebsd.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||easy, patch, patch-ready
 CC|freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD. |
   |org,|
   |portmas...@bsdforge.com |
 Status|New |Open
   Assignee|freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org   |freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.
   ||org

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


[Bug 199447] Mk/bsd.sites.mk re-introduce WORKING MASTER_SITE_COMP_SOURCES list

2015-06-12 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199447

Mathieu Arnold m...@freebsd.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|port...@freebsd.org |freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org

--- Comment #3 from Mathieu Arnold m...@freebsd.org ---
bsd.sites.mk is not owned by portmgr, anyone can commit to it.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


Re: MASTER_SITE_FEDORA_LINUX in bsd.sites.mk

2012-02-22 Thread Thomas Abthorpe
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 04:27:47PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote:
 On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 09:09:10PM +, Chris Rees wrote:
  I worry about the ethics of 'stealing' Fedora's bandwidth with other
  people's ports; we should only be using their mirrors if it's explicitly
  developed by Fedora.
 
 Correct.  dougb has pointed this out before and no one has taken the
 cycles to go act on it.  Consider this a task that needs volunteers.
 
 (A similiar caveat applies to the Debian and NetBSD sites; I believe
 it was Debian he flagged previously.)
 
 mcl

I have engaged the mirror maintainers and infrastructure people at
Gentoo and Debian on this matter, and for the sake of completeness our
own FreeBSD mirror admins.

The short response is, That is fine, just do it.

Yay, there was much rejoicing in the land, end of story :)

The longer part of this, is that we are all opensource-minded people,
publicly sharing has been a part of our genetics since inception.  It is
ok to ustilise the public facing mirrors, just please do not abuse them.

Another common thread I got from the maintainers that contacted me back
was that they mirror for multiple projects on their site anyway, and
that the additional traffic was nominal at best.

One fellow told me he was in active competition for throughput with
another mirror, and welcomed the extra hits he was getting.

Through all of this, I was asked, particularly by the Debian folks,
please ask permission of mirror maintainer before you list their mirror
in the master list.

You will see my recent commit to bsd.sites.mk, I added 4 more volunteers
to the Debian list,
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/Mk/bsd.sites.mk.diff?r1=1.558;r2=1.559

I hope this helps clarify the usage of other project mirrors.


Thomas

-- 
Thomas Abthorpe | FreeBSD Committer
tabtho...@freebsd.org   | http://people.freebsd.org/~tabthorpe


pgp2MQKxgZyST.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: MASTER_SITE_FEDORA_LINUX in bsd.sites.mk

2012-01-19 Thread perryh
Mark Linimon lini...@lonesome.com wrote:
 On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 09:09:10PM +, Chris Rees wrote:
  I worry about the ethics of 'stealing' Fedora's bandwidth with
  other people's ports; we should only be using their mirrors if
  it's explicitly developed by Fedora.

 Correct.  dougb has pointed this out before and no one has taken
 the cycles to go act on it.  Consider this a task that needs
 volunteers.

 (A similiar caveat applies to the Debian and NetBSD sites;
 I believe it was Debian he flagged previously.)

Isn't this concern orthogonal to the original one about maintaining
a (set of) correct MASTER_SITE setting(s), for use by such ports as
can legitimately use Fedora/Debian/NetBSD/whatever sites?
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


Re: MASTER_SITE_FEDORA_LINUX in bsd.sites.mk

2012-01-19 Thread Mark Linimon
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:41:21AM -0800, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
 Isn't this concern orthogonal to the original one about maintaining
 a (set of) correct MASTER_SITE setting(s), for use by such ports as
 can legitimately use Fedora/Debian/NetBSD/whatever sites?

Yes, IMHO.

mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


Re: MASTER_SITE_FEDORA_LINUX in bsd.sites.mk

2012-01-18 Thread Chris Rees
On 17 Jan 2012 08:32, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:

 Jason Helfman j...@freebsd.org wrote:
  I was looking at update bsd.sites.mk, and found that
  MASTER_SITE_FEDORA_LINUX is only used in one port.
 
  Any objection to moving this site-index into
x11-themes/bluecurve-themes,
  and removing from bsd.sites.mk?
 
  There is also a referrence to it in bsd.linux-rpm.mk, but not certain
how
  this should be handled. This seems to be a legacy site-index.

 This might better be asked on ports@ (Cc'd).

 I would think that Fedora is a sufficiently common distribution
 to warrant keeping this setting in a central location, in case
 of future need in a non-X port, unless its presence is causing
 problems.


I worry about the ethics of 'stealing' Fedora's bandwidth with other
people's ports; we should only be using their mirrors if it's explicitly
developed by Fedora.

Chris
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


Re: MASTER_SITE_FEDORA_LINUX in bsd.sites.mk

2012-01-18 Thread Paul Schmehl

--On January 18, 2012 9:09:10 PM + Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com wrote:


I worry about the ethics of 'stealing' Fedora's bandwidth with other
people's ports; we should only be using their mirrors if it's explicitly
developed by Fedora.



I'm not sure I follow.  If Fedora is making an rpm available for download, 
how is it stealing their bandwidth to download the rpm from there? 
Wouldn't be equally stealing to download it from anywhere else?


--
Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst
As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions
are my own and not those of my employer.
***
It is as useless to argue with those who have
renounced the use of reason as to administer
medication to the dead. Thomas Jefferson
There are some ideas so wrong that only a very
intelligent person could believe in them. George Orwell

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


Re: MASTER_SITE_FEDORA_LINUX in bsd.sites.mk

2012-01-18 Thread Mark Linimon
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 09:09:10PM +, Chris Rees wrote:
 I worry about the ethics of 'stealing' Fedora's bandwidth with other
 people's ports; we should only be using their mirrors if it's explicitly
 developed by Fedora.

Correct.  dougb has pointed this out before and no one has taken the
cycles to go act on it.  Consider this a task that needs volunteers.

(A similiar caveat applies to the Debian and NetBSD sites; I believe
it was Debian he flagged previously.)

mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


Re: MASTER_SITE_FEDORA_LINUX in bsd.sites.mk

2012-01-17 Thread perryh
Jason Helfman j...@freebsd.org wrote:
 I was looking at update bsd.sites.mk, and found that
 MASTER_SITE_FEDORA_LINUX is only used in one port.

 Any objection to moving this site-index into x11-themes/bluecurve-themes,
 and removing from bsd.sites.mk?

 There is also a referrence to it in bsd.linux-rpm.mk, but not certain how
 this should be handled. This seems to be a legacy site-index.

This might better be asked on ports@ (Cc'd).

I would think that Fedora is a sufficiently common distribution
to warrant keeping this setting in a central location, in case
of future need in a non-X port, unless its presence is causing
problems.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


Rubygem hosting (bsd.sites.mk)

2010-05-04 Thread Eric
Dear all,

At the risk of cross post flaming, I thought I would bring up the matter of
RubyGem ports on the main ports list having heard nothing back from my
initial enquiry on the ruby lists [1], but perhaps since it's really about
ports then this is the right place!

I've noticed that from time to time the general migration of gems from
rubyforge.org to gemcutter.org/rubygems.org [2] (and indeed GitHub[3]) has
been mentioned on the FreeBSD ruby and ports lists, but it would appear
nothing has been changed yet in the bsd.sites.mk file to accommodate this
migration (may have missed a pr in progress of course).  Since I find myself
writing quick gem ports every now and then I thought it would be worth
bringing the matter up for a quick discussion before sending in my suggested
patch as a PR.

I personally think the cleanest thing to do is add anther MASTER_SITE for
RubyGems.org.  Now it would be nice to add their download location directly,
but that does a 302 redirect to Amazon or CloudFiles for the actual
download, so I think we'll need to pop those locations into bsd.sites.mk
directly. Thus:

# See http://rubygems.org/pages/about
.if !defined(IGNORE_MASTER_SITE_RUBYGEMS)
MASTER_SITE_RUBYGEMS+= \
 http://production.s3.rubygems.org/gems/%SUBDIR%/ \
 http://production.cf.rubygems.org/gems/%SUBDIR%/
.endif

Since it will be pretty cool to be able to update many ports by just
s/RF/RG/ in many cases I think we should have an abbreviation for the
RubyGems site thus:

MASTER_SITES_ABBREVS= CPAN:PERL_CPAN \
  SF:SOURCEFORGE \
  SFJP:SOURCEFORGE_JP \
  RG:RUBYGEMS \
  RF:RUBYFORGE

Now one thing I'm not 100% sure on is the use of the '%SUBDIR%' in the
paths, in this case none of the gems will be located in subdirectories since
the gem hosting is flat.  It would appear that the standard way of doing
things in the bsd.sites.mk is to specify a '%SUBDIR%' element, then if a
pattern is defined in the 'MASTER_SITES_SUBDIRS', that element is replaced.
Is that correct?  So for a RubyForge example, the pattern in
'MASTER_SITES_SUBDIRS' is 'RUBYFORGE:${PORTNAME:L}', which would be the name
of the port lowercased (I guess). So say for 'file-tail' that would make the
download location: 
http://files.rubyforge.vm.bytemark.co.uk/file-tail/file-tail-n.n.n.gem

So it occurs to me that we could either just not have a
'MASTER_SITES_SUBDIRS' entry for the RUBYGEMS site (easy) or we could have
one that was just the 'hardcoded' gems subdirectory, something like this:

  RUBYGEMS:gems \

Like the CENKES entry in the file.  We would then make the
'MASTER_SITE_RUBYGEMS' entries like this:
http://production.s3.rubygems.org/%SUBDIR%/
Not quite sure what the best FreeBSD ports protocol is here.  I personally
feel perhaps that makes it more complicated than it needs to be?


Finally it's a good opportunity to replace the dead mirror in the RubyForge
entry, since 'http://files.rubyforge.mmmultiworks.com' seems to have been
down for some time now.

# See http://rubyforge.org/credits/
.if !defined(IGNORE_MASTER_SITE_RUBYFORGE)
MASTER_SITE_RUBYFORGE+= \
 http://files.rubyforge.vm.bytemark.co.uk/%SUBDIR%/ \
 http://files.ruby.inoack.com/%SUBDIR%/
.endif

Any thoughts, comments, suggestions before I put a PR and associated diff
in?

Regards

Eric

---
[1] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ruby/2010-April/000290.html
[2]
  http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ruby/2010-February/000250.html
  http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2009-December/058516.html
[3] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ruby/2010-January/000220.html

---
Diff of proposed changes for those interested:

--- bsd.sites.mk.orig2010-04-06 02:53:13.0 +0100
+++ bsd.sites.mk2010-05-04 14:54:22.0 +0100
@@ -1141,8 +1141,15 @@
 # See http://rubyforge.org/credits/
 .if !defined(IGNORE_MASTER_SITE_RUBYFORGE)
 MASTER_SITE_RUBYFORGE+= \
-http://files.rubyforge.mmmultiworks.com/%SUBDIR%/ \
-http://files.rubyforge.vm.bytemark.co.uk/%SUBDIR%/
+http://files.rubyforge.vm.bytemark.co.uk/%SUBDIR%/ \
+http://files.ruby.inoack.com/%SUBDIR%/
+.endif
+
+# See http://rubygems.org/pages/about
+.if !defined(IGNORE_MASTER_SITE_RUBYGEMS)
+MASTER_SITE_RUBYGEMS+= \
+http://production.s3.rubygems.org/gems/%SUBDIR%/ \
+http://production.cf.rubygems.org/gems/%SUBDIR%/
 .endif
 
 .if !defined(IGNORE_MASTER_SITE_SAMBA)
@@ -1493,6 +1500,7 @@
 MASTER_SITES_ABBREVS=CPAN:PERL_CPAN \
 SF:SOURCEFORGE \
 SFJP:SOURCEFORGE_JP \
+RG:RUBYGEMS \
 RF:RUBYFORGE
 MASTER_SITES_SUBDIRS=\
 APACHE_JAKARTA:${PORTNAME:S,-,/,}/source \


___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


Re: bsd.sites.mk

2009-12-21 Thread Doug Barton
John J. Rushford Jr wrote:
 Greetings,
 
 I was wondering if you could move ftp.belnet.be to the bottom of all
 lists in bsd.sites.mk.  This ftp site is extremely slow and shouldn't be
 at the top of the list in my opinion.

Fast is a relative term for people. Take a look at
/usr/ports/ports-mgmt/fastest_sites/ to help make it better for you.


hth,

Doug

-- 

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

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


bsd.sites.mk

2009-12-19 Thread John J. Rushford Jr

Greetings,

I was wondering if you could move ftp.belnet.be to the bottom of all 
lists in bsd.sites.mk.  This ftp site is extremely slow and shouldn't be 
at the top of the list in my opinion.


thanks
John Rushford
j...@alisa.org
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


Re: bsd.sites.mk

2009-12-19 Thread RW
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:11:42 -0700
John J. Rushford Jr j...@alisa.org wrote:

 Greetings,
 
 I was wondering if you could move ftp.belnet.be to the bottom of all 
 lists in bsd.sites.mk.  This ftp site is extremely slow and shouldn't
 be at the top of the list in my opinion.
 

Try setting your preferred servers in MASTER_SORT_REGEX.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org


bsd.sites.mk changes (was Re: Xfce goodies master sites)

2007-10-31 Thread Warren Block
The questions: is this the right thing to do and is it the right way to 
go about it?


If bsd.sites.mk is changed as shown below, all of the xfce goodies 
ports can use


  MASTER_SITES=   ${MASTER_SITE_XFCE_GOODIES}

That will unify all of the goodies ports and ease future changes like 
additional mirrors or moves.


There are currently 26 ports of xfce goodies (not counting the 
xfce-notification-daemon port, which I haven't submitted yet):


 #find /usr/ports -name Makefile -exec grep -l goodies.xfce.org {} \+

Proposed changes to bsd.sites.mk:

--- bsd.sites.mk.orig   2007-10-30 16:58:47.0 -0600
+++ bsd.sites.mk2007-10-31 18:43:01.0 -0600
@@ -1359,6 +1359,11 @@
http://www.p0llux.be/xfce/%SUBDIR%/src/
 .endif

+.if !defined(IGNORE_MASTER_SITE_XFCE_GOODIES)
+MASTER_SITE_XFCE_GOODIES+= \
+   http://goodies.xfce.org/releases/${PORTNAME}/
+.endif
+
 .if !defined(IGNORE_MASTER_SITE_XFREE)
 MASTER_SITE_XFREE+= \
http://www.gtlib.cc.gatech.edu/pub/XFree86/%SUBDIR%/source/ \

-Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: RFC: bsd.sites.mk - introduce some magic

2006-07-28 Thread Andrew Pantyukhin

On 7/26/06, Andrew Pantyukhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

This patch introduces a very simple, but handy (imho) framework
into bsd.sites.mk:

http://people.freebsd.org/~sat/diffs/bsd.sites.macros.diff


I added some more default subdirs:
http://people.freebsd.org/~sat/diffs/bsd.sites.macros2.diff

I ran different greps on the whole tree to ensure that no existing
port will invoke the magic. Well, there were 3 ports with runaway
backslashes that would, but they're fixed now. So I guess I'll be
committing this in a day or two if I don't get shot before that. And
since this doesn't affect you by default, I'll take another day or two
to document it.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


RFC: bsd.sites.mk - introduce some magic

2006-07-26 Thread Andrew Pantyukhin

This patch introduces a very simple, but handy (imho) framework
into bsd.sites.mk:

http://people.freebsd.org/~sat/diffs/bsd.sites.macros.diff

1. (A tad) cleaner ports Makefiles:
Write MASTER_SITES=FOOBAR instead of
MASTER_SITES=${MASTER_SITE_FOOBAR} and get away
with it

2. Abbreviations
Write MASTER_SITES=SF and mean SOURCEFORGE

3. Default subdirs
With MASTER_SITES set to SF or SOURCEFORGE you
get MASTER_SITE_SUBDIR?=${PORTNAME:L} for free!

4. Multiple master_sites support
http://123/ SF http://1251/ CPAN http://789/ is handled ok.
Subdir is set to the first (non-group) default, if any.

6. Compatible
No processing is done at all unless macros are found. The
whole thing is wrapped in .if ${MASTER_SITES:N*/*}

7. Extensible
New abbreviations and default subdirs are a breeze to add

8. Order stays intact
MASTER_SITES=http://123/ SF http://234/ CPAN becomes
http://123/ sf sites http://234/ cpan sites

9. Site groups are supported
If you write SF:sf, you'll get all SF sites in sf site group
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: RFC: bsd.sites.mk - introduce some magic

2006-07-26 Thread Florent Thoumie
On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 17:18 +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
 This patch introduces a very simple, but handy (imho) framework
 into bsd.sites.mk:
 
 http://people.freebsd.org/~sat/diffs/bsd.sites.macros.diff
 
 1. (A tad) cleaner ports Makefiles:
 Write MASTER_SITES=FOOBAR instead of
 MASTER_SITES=${MASTER_SITE_FOOBAR} and get away
 with it
 
 2. Abbreviations
 Write MASTER_SITES=SF and mean SOURCEFORGE

I don't quite like having 3 different ways to use a group of
MASTER_SITES.

 3. Default subdirs
 With MASTER_SITES set to SF or SOURCEFORGE you
 get MASTER_SITE_SUBDIR?=${PORTNAME:L} for free!

This is a really good thing.

-- 
Florent Thoumie
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FreeBSD Committer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: RFC: bsd.sites.mk - introduce some magic

2006-07-26 Thread Shaun Amott
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 03:37:37PM +0100, Florent Thoumie wrote:
 On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 17:18 +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
  
  1. (A tad) cleaner ports Makefiles:
  Write MASTER_SITES=FOOBAR instead of
  MASTER_SITES=${MASTER_SITE_FOOBAR} and get away
  with it
  
  2. Abbreviations
  Write MASTER_SITES=SF and mean SOURCEFORGE
 
 I don't quite like having 3 different ways to use a group of
 MASTER_SITES.

Agreed - the above changes are gratuitous, and simply add an unnecessary
layer of obfustication. It also seems strange to pick out one or two
MASTER_SITES sets only.

  3. Default subdirs
  With MASTER_SITES set to SF or SOURCEFORGE you
  get MASTER_SITE_SUBDIR?=${PORTNAME:L} for free!
 
 This is a really good thing.

I agree.

-- 
Shaun Amott [ PGP: 0x6B387A9A ]
Scientia Est Potentia.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: RFC: bsd.sites.mk - introduce some magic

2006-07-26 Thread Andrew Pantyukhin

On 7/26/06, Shaun Amott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 03:37:37PM +0100, Florent Thoumie wrote:
 On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 17:18 +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
  2. Abbreviations
  Write MASTER_SITES=SF and mean SOURCEFORGE

 I don't quite like having 3 different ways to use a group of
 MASTER_SITES.

Agreed - the above changes are gratuitous, and simply add an unnecessary
layer of obfustication. It also seems strange to pick out one or two
MASTER_SITES sets only.


My rationale is simple: there are ~2594 ports fetching from sf
and ~2338 ports fetching from cpan. Every single porter knows
about these sites. Personally, I would appreciate it if I only had
to type SF or CPAN instead of their full-length equivalents. I
understand your point about obfuscation, but there are sf.net
and cpan.org, I'm *not* proposing something mzd-mozdev,
xg-xorg, but only the most obvious things. As far as I'm
concerned, we're only keeping SOURCEFORGE and
PERL_CPAN for backward compatibility.


  3. Default subdirs
  With MASTER_SITES set to SF or SOURCEFORGE you
  get MASTER_SITE_SUBDIR?=${PORTNAME:L} for free!

 This is a really good thing.

I agree.


Thanks, I'm really tired of typing it.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]