Created attachment 156222 [details] Fix sysutils/cronolog The port's master-site is not merely down, it has been taken-over by a squatter! There were also no new releases since 2002. Considering portmgr@'s usual eagerness to declare such ports "broken" and/or "obsolete", one can be forgiven for suspecting, some port-managers are more equal than others. Anyway, attached is the patch for the port -- the two proposed master-sites host the same tar-ball we know about (checksum didn't change), and the patch-site hosts the patch-file without MSDOS line-endings simplifying the processing. A special setting had to be added to configure's environment to allow passing QA-tests on systems, where there is /usr/bin/perl (symlink). The proposed patch-site has some other patches, some of which might be useful too. Adding them would require bumping PORTVERSION, however, whereas this fix simply fixes the port. Please, commit or allow me to. Thank you.
Created attachment 156223 [details] Fix sysutils/cronolog This version uses http, rather than https to talk to vps.googlecode.com.
"some port-managers are more equal than others" It's nice of you to start off trying to attack me. I did not realize this port even had an issue until you mentioned it.
(In reply to Bryan Drewery from comment #2) The "attack" was not meant on you, but portmgr@ as a whole. You may remember the several run-ins I had with the esteemed group regarding whether and when a port, that can not be downloaded from the listed master-site(s), should be declared "broken" and/or "obsolete" -- even if all the necessary bits are still available from FreeBSD's vast network of mirrors (audio/festival is but one currently "broken" example). So, imagine my surprise, when I found a port I needed to build today, to be in just such a state -- but with neither BROKEN nor DEPRECATED flags set in it... Whoever among portmgr@ is watching these things, obviously, considered sysutils/cronolog to be more equal than audio/festival -- and the only reason (however remotely plausible) for the difference is the port's maintainer. I have no illusions about being personally likeable, but I'd hope, you share my disappointment over this evident favouritism. > I did not realize this port even had an issue until you mentioned it. Well, the master site's domain was last updated in January. Downloads should've stopped working at least then -- I seem to remember there being an automated e-mail notice sent in such a case, but, maybe, these have been disabled... Not sure.
Committed in r402603