On 2023/07/20 18:19, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 01:47:42PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2023/07/20 14:27, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 10:24:10AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > > portroach doesn't reliably use the site handler for cpan, various ports > > > > (notably those with Foo-Bar-v1.23 format distfile names) fallback to > > > > directory listing. For example see the "L" instead of "S" for > > > > p5-Sys-Virt in > > > > https://portroach.openbsd.org/antoine%20jacoutot%20%3cajacou...@openbsd.org%3E.html > > > > > > > > Also the "is this site handled by this" regex doesn't cover some URL > > > > formats (though afaict as long as one of the various MASTER_SITES > > > > entries matches, it looks like it does pick it up anyway). > > > > > > > > I think this diff should help but it's not tested. Is there any good way > > > > to test portroach without setting up a full installation and having it > > > > fetch a list of URLs the size of 45 aardvarks? > > > > > > I can put this on portroach.openbsd.org if you want? > > > > If it's not likely to mess anything up too badly for the database, yes > > please - I don't think it can make things much worse anyway :) > > Running with it. > portroach.openbsd.org has been updated with the latest ports with this patch > if you want to check.
It didn't fix existing ones on portroach.openbsd.org but I've done a quick install on a machine here and it is correctly using the right site handler during a fetch with debug enabled, and doesn't show incorrect "new" versions for p5-* things where I know there was a problem (e.g. p5-Calendar-Simple listed for ports@), so I think the diff is good. I suspect portroach isn't overwriting an entry where it already thinks it has a "new" version, so clearing the db should help fix those.
