cvs commit: ports/archivers/9e distinfo ports/archivers/bzip distinfo ports/archivers/cabextract distinfo ports/archivers/dact distinfo ports/archivers/fastjar distinfo ports/archivers/gshar+gunsh

[Trevor Johnson]

> > Hum, that I read, but it only talked of a new feature that we could use if
> > we wanted. The question is still there, should we (port committers) use it
> > in our make.conf and have the SIZE field present event if USE_SIZE is not
> > defined in the Makefile ?

Unless I misunderstood, its purpose for now is just to let a user know how
big the distfiles for a port are, before the user starts to download them.
It's optional.

> I don't think it should be policy, but having 50/50 ports with
> SIZE field will also confuse people.

I think it would only cause minor confusion.  Users can just be told that
the feature hasn't been deployed in all ports.

So far I've added SIZE lines to 3% of all ports.  What do you propose?
Do you want me to back out my commits?  Do you want the USE_SIZE stuff
taken out of bsd.port.mk?  Do you want all ports to be changed
simultaneously so they list sizes?  What I am intending to do is to
gradually--a few categories at a time--add size lines to the ports
maintained by me and those in the care of ports@, altogether 30% of the
collection.  If only a handful of ports have the information, I doubt
users will bother to look for it.

I'll hold off awhile on continuing this work--please get back to me if
you still have objections.
-- 
Trevor Johnson