ports/187185: lang/ruby-doc-stdlib: fails to fetch, checksum mismatch

[John Marino]

On 3/10/2014 16:22, clutton wrote:
> I really don't like that approach, because it's a documentation and
> since it's fetcheble no one will assume that it's the outdated version.
> It's better to remove that port at all.
> 
> If you think that it should be done in that way, go ahead...
> 
> I'm little disappointed, I updated that port to the current state
> because having local documentation is always quicker then reading the
> remote version. But It's just a waste of time doing updates like that.
> It's better to read the remote version then.
> 
> My proposal is that: let's update it now, then we'll see how often it'll
> require attention. Too often means removing the port.

I believe it rerolled at least 3 times in a month.
The port is a PITA.  The last time it wasn't valid for even a week.
If the documentation were stored, it could be updated by the maintainer
at regular intervals without surprises (say every 90 days) but then yes,
it would be out of date by up to 89 days.

Your call, but I've already seen this port in action.  I know what is
going to happen already.

John