Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 00:48:23 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130528004823.71bd739a>