From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 27 23:48:27 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1DCF843 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 23:48:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-we0-x22c.google.com (mail-we0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36E15401 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 23:48:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f172.google.com with SMTP id w62so4765858wes.31 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 16:48:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=r8hEcWHwYnkr48dC7gdkwxz66H95dpERPDAZBBaqwNc=; b=yc53wIjvaDe0dDJNaIxqMaU4wmSuRpQlGTiVzK5/eqxiHmolaEEV3PvvVQTsRBWu/G Pcr9plSeQZYXvdOfAoxNbN3BK5grra92N7JwXzCSnCtDezd++LKC2GEH02WqPhw7ytuI WE47nd6t+M6L+jtI0VSlWLqkyihvi+AxbLlKDMKYMwOPk1rOoGKTB8tCiFgaHT8403cM bnmTu4paeVHMw7yJQ4BXTpMNKYipkKSdZNAJLon+xOFpiARvXBQ+45tkNHFfhmrmLnNQ ixlmy/dWJ1O8ghlJVoRcYbBvfc/vdCDH5kLeApwTGLrYlAwui35u6iV1xe/7ykBGecRc cplg== X-Received: by 10.180.9.7 with SMTP id v7mr9940259wia.61.1369698505399; Mon, 27 May 2013 16:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com (87-194-105-247.bethere.co.uk. [87.194.105.247]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id en3sm20797603wid.1.2013.05.27.16.48.24 for (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 27 May 2013 16:48:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 00:48:23 +0100 From: RW To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The vim port needs a refresh Message-ID: <20130528004823.71bd739a@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <51A3E8A7.7030106@marino.st> References: <20130524212318.B967FE6739@smtp.hushmail.com> <20130527140609.3d3b9d23@gumby.homeunix.com> <444ndofstn.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> <20130527153440.020ab20e@gumby.homeunix.com> <51A3798C.9000004@marino.st> <20130527173633.0e196a08@gumby.homeunix.com> <51A38D87.8070102@marino.st> <20130527183620.5ff9d8b0@gumby.homeunix.com> <51A3A813.1060908@marino.st> <20130527210924.36432f32@gumby.homeunix.com> <51A3C331.901@marino.st> <20130528000505.6c506b1a@gumby.homeunix.com> <51A3E8A7.7030106@marino.st> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.17; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 23:48:27 -0000 On Tue, 28 May 2013 01:13:43 +0200 John Marino wrote: > On 5/28/2013 01:05, RW wrote: > > On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:33:53 +0200 > > John Marino wrote: > > In other words downloading every patch twice. > > No. That's not what those words mean. > Please stop assuming that somebody builds Vim repeatedly and start > assuming it's built for the very first time. Why wouldn't I? Are you seriously suggesting that it's the norm to build a port once and then never build it again? > Also, given these > patches are a couple of kilobytes at most, a compressed tarball of > 100 patches (or even 700 patches) is negligible. Even if somebody > with a cache downloaded it twice, so what? It's not even noticeable. They add up to 3 MB which is noticeable to someone on dialup even when compressed. Ordinarily, it wouldn't matter, but as I said before VIM is something that could be part of a very minimal build - something that might be maintained even over very slow dial-up. > >> At the very, very least maybe only HTTP hosts are listed for VIM (I > >> just checked bsd.sites.mk, the ftp sites are all at the end of the > >> list now) > > > > All 13 http links would have to fail before the ftp links are > > tried. > > > So what's the point of having them on the list? Isn't 13 mirrors > enough? Some people may find ftp faster or more reliable - it depends on your circumstances. > >> I may have still been on the old bsd.sites.mk with a site> 10 > >> seconds per file. (this is yet another data point) > > > > We already knew that it was slow before January, so that's > > irrelevant. > > > It validated my story as more than anecdotal. No it didn't because I already told you that there unreliable servers then.