Ignore MisbehavingServers rather than fail with an error

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Apr 9, 2012, at 00:39, Joshua Root wrote:

> On 2012-4-9 14:22 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> I wanted to make sure this change made it in because I'm tired of dealing with the tickets.
> 
> If you need a break, then by all means take one.

What I'm trying to get across is that if we have an opportunity to reduce the number of tickets that get filed, that's of benefit to everyone, so why shouldn't we do it?


>> On Apr 8, 2012, at 22:40, Joshua Root wrote:
>> 
>>> Applying restrictions to what distfiles may contain before you even know
>>> that the checksums don't match is an incorrect approach.
>> 
>> Ok, what's the correct approach?
> 
> The current approach is more correct, for one. I'm obviously not going
> to come up with an optimal approach on the spot; good design takes time
> and careful thought.

The current approach does not solve the problem I outlined before. The patch I committed does. I agree it and a bit of a hack, but I cannot envision a situation in which it doesn't work correctly. If you can, please let me know.

Off the top of my head, here's an alternate solution: right before we ping servers to find which ones are nearby, look up the IP address of a hostname that we know doesn't exist (i.e. nonexistent.macports.org). If it returns an IP address, we know we're dealing with a broken DNS server. Then, see if any of the servers we're going to ping resolve to the same IP. If so, they should be removed from the list and treated as if they don't exist.