Re: Add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk
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
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} >>>> >>>> >>>> ${EXTRACT_SUFX} can be zip, tar.gz, tar.bz2 and tar >>>> >>>> Is anyone already working on it or do you want to do it with me? >>> Assuming gitlab remains API compatible with github. I'm wondering if >>> gitlab.com, github.com, and gitlab hosted site support can be merged >>> into a single set of vars. >> >> You can stop here, because they are not compatible. They do not differ >> greatly, but enough. The gitlab API is akin to the previous github API >> where the commit hash was required. >> A USE_GITLAB is currently being worked on, though. > > Do you know who works on it? I didn't see anything like it, but it > would be handy for me. Maybe i could help. > > Greetings, > Torsten > ___ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk
On 21.08.2017 16:48, Mathieu Arnold wrote: Le 20/08/2017 à 23:16, Derek Schrock a écrit : On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 04:28:01PM EDT, L.Bartoletti wrote: Hello, I would suggest to add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk Since, I think I am not competent to propose a patch, I ask for help. I have ports to create where the sources are only available on GitLab. Like some other ports (audio/midi-matrix-lv2, audio/moony-lv2, etc.) I can fetch source using a direct link. But, it may be nice to have this possibility. As I can see, it can be similar (and maybe easier) than github. Archive can be dowload by this URL: https://gitlab.com/${GL_ACCOUNT}/${GL_PROJECT}/repository/${GL_TAGNAME}/archive.${EXTRACT_SUFX} ${EXTRACT_SUFX} can be zip, tar.gz, tar.bz2 and tar Is anyone already working on it or do you want to do it with me? Assuming gitlab remains API compatible with github. I'm wondering if gitlab.com, github.com, and gitlab hosted site support can be merged into a single set of vars. You can stop here, because they are not compatible. They do not differ greatly, but enough. The gitlab API is akin to the previous github API where the commit hash was required. A USE_GITLAB is currently being worked on, though. Do you know who works on it? I didn't see anything like it, but it would be handy for me. Maybe i could help. Greetings, Torsten ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk
Le 20/08/2017 à 23:16, Derek Schrock a écrit : > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 04:28:01PM EDT, L.Bartoletti wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I would suggest to add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk >> >> Since, I think I am not competent to propose a patch, I ask for help. >> >> I have ports to create where the sources are only available on GitLab. >> Like some other ports (audio/midi-matrix-lv2, audio/moony-lv2, etc.) I >> can fetch source using a direct link. But, it may be nice to have this >> possibility. >> >> As I can see, it can be similar (and maybe easier) than github. >> >> Archive can be dowload by this URL: >> https://gitlab.com/${GL_ACCOUNT}/${GL_PROJECT}/repository/${GL_TAGNAME}/archive.${EXTRACT_SUFX} >> >> ${EXTRACT_SUFX} can be zip, tar.gz, tar.bz2 and tar >> >> Is anyone already working on it or do you want to do it with me? > Assuming gitlab remains API compatible with github. I'm wondering if > gitlab.com, github.com, and gitlab hosted site support can be merged > into a single set of vars. You can stop here, because they are not compatible. They do not differ greatly, but enough. The gitlab API is akin to the previous github API where the commit hash was required. A USE_GITLAB is currently being worked on, though. -- Mathieu Arnold signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 04:28:01PM EDT, L.Bartoletti wrote: > Hello, > > I would suggest to add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk > > Since, I think I am not competent to propose a patch, I ask for help. > > I have ports to create where the sources are only available on GitLab. > Like some other ports (audio/midi-matrix-lv2, audio/moony-lv2, etc.) I > can fetch source using a direct link. But, it may be nice to have this > possibility. > > As I can see, it can be similar (and maybe easier) than github. > > Archive can be dowload by this URL: > https://gitlab.com/${GL_ACCOUNT}/${GL_PROJECT}/repository/${GL_TAGNAME}/archive.${EXTRACT_SUFX} > > ${EXTRACT_SUFX} can be zip, tar.gz, tar.bz2 and tar > > Is anyone already working on it or do you want to do it with me? Assuming gitlab remains API compatible with github. I'm wondering if gitlab.com, github.com, and gitlab hosted site support can be merged into a single set of vars. The main difference between gitlab, gitlab hosted, and github.com would be the domain and a set of master sites? Everything else can be shared. If you look at www/tt-rss we're using almost the same URL from above as the master site. This is a gitlab hosted repo. Having some type of control var to tell ports of the provider (github GH, gitlab.com GL, gitlab hosted GLH) would control the master site values. ... USE_GITHUB=yes # Use github.com and set master sites according ... USE_GITLAB=yes # Use gitlab.com and set master sites according ... USE_GITLAB=example.com/path/to/base ...# Use gitlab hosted use URLish as master site Or a single var ... USE_GITHUB={yes|GH|GL|example.com/path/to/base} ... If set ports would expect the same GH_* vars from the Porters handbook Table 5.5 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk
Hello, I would suggest to add gitlab.com into bsd.sites.mk Since, I think I am not competent to propose a patch, I ask for help. I have ports to create where the sources are only available on GitLab. Like some other ports (audio/midi-matrix-lv2, audio/moony-lv2, etc.) I can fetch source using a direct link. But, it may be nice to have this possibility. As I can see, it can be similar (and maybe easier) than github. Archive can be dowload by this URL: https://gitlab.com/${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)
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)
> 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)
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)
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)
> 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)
> 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)
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)
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)
> On 11 Mar, 2017, at 10:45, Gerald Pfeiferwrote: > > 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)
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)
> 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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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/${DIST_SUBDIR}/ ! # which works OK as shown Mon Dec 14 12:51:15 CET 2015 ! # requesting http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/distfiles/dlint1.4.0.tar.gz ! # remote size / mtime: 23007 / 974584800 ! # dlint1.4.0.tar.gz 100% of 22 kB 96 kBps 00m00s ! # Consider adding ! # http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/distfiles/%SUBDIR%/ ! # to Mk/bsd.sites.mk USES= shebangfix NO_BUILD= yes Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Linux Unix Sys. Eng. Consultant Munich http://berklix.com Reply After previous text to preserve context, as in a play script. Indent previous text with >Insert new lines before 80 chars. Use plain text, Not quoted-printable, Not HTML, Not base64, Not MS.doc. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Mk/bsd.sites.mk add NetBSD path to fix dns/dlint/Makefile fetch BROKEN
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:15:02 +0100 "Julian H. Stacey" <j...@berklix.com> wrote > Hi ports-...@freebsd.org > cc: po...@freebsd.org > > I suggest ports-mgr@ add a distfiles repository path to Mk/bsd.sites.mk > which would allow dns/lint [& perhaps other ports ?] to remove BROKEN= > > *** current/ports/dns/dlint/MakefileMon Dec 14 12:45:45 2015 > --- current/ports/dns/dlint/MakefileMon Dec 14 12:45:58 2015 > *** > *** 11,17 > MAINTAINER=jlaff...@freebsd.org > COMMENT=Lint for DNS zones (Domain Name Server zone verification > utility) > > ! BROKEN=unfetchable > USES=shebangfix > NO_BUILD=yes > > --- 11,25 > MAINTAINER=jlaff...@freebsd.org > COMMENT=Lint for DNS zones (Domain Name Server zone verification > utility) > > ! # BROKEN=unfetchable > ! # My (jhs@) make.conf adds > http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/distfiles/${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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
--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
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
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)
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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 ${MASTER_SITES:N*/*} 7. Extensible New abbreviations and default subdirs are a breeze to add 8. Order stays intact MASTER_SITES=http://123/ SF http://234/ CPAN becomes http://123/ sf sites http://234/ cpan sites 9. Site groups are supported If you write SF:sf, you'll get all SF sites in sf site group ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: bsd.sites.mk - introduce some magic
On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 17:18 +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: This patch introduces a very simple, but handy (imho) framework into bsd.sites.mk: http://people.freebsd.org/~sat/diffs/bsd.sites.macros.diff 1. (A tad) cleaner ports Makefiles: Write MASTER_SITES=FOOBAR instead of MASTER_SITES=${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?=${PORTNAME:L} for free! This is a really good thing. -- Florent Thoumie [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD Committer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFC: bsd.sites.mk - introduce some magic
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 03:37:37PM +0100, Florent Thoumie wrote: On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 17:18 +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: 1. (A tad) cleaner ports Makefiles: Write MASTER_SITES=FOOBAR instead of MASTER_SITES=${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?=${PORTNAME:L} for free! This is a really good thing. I agree. -- Shaun Amott [ PGP: 0x6B387A9A ] Scientia Est Potentia. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: bsd.sites.mk - introduce some magic
On 7/26/06, Shaun Amott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 03:37:37PM +0100, Florent Thoumie wrote: On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 17:18 +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: 2. Abbreviations Write MASTER_SITES=SF and mean SOURCEFORGE I don't quite like having 3 different ways to use a group of MASTER_SITES. Agreed - the above changes are gratuitous, and simply add an unnecessary layer of obfustication. It also seems strange to pick out one or two MASTER_SITES sets only. My rationale is simple: there are ~2594 ports fetching from sf and ~2338 ports fetching from cpan. Every single porter knows about these sites. Personally, I would appreciate it if I only had to type SF or CPAN instead of their full-length equivalents. I understand your point about obfuscation, but there are sf.net and cpan.org, I'm *not* proposing something mzd-mozdev, xg-xorg, but only the most obvious things. As far as I'm concerned, we're only keeping SOURCEFORGE and PERL_CPAN for backward compatibility. 3. Default subdirs With MASTER_SITES set to SF or SOURCEFORGE you get MASTER_SITE_SUBDIR?=${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]