Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:47:15 +0100 From: "Ronald Klop" <ronald-freebsd8@klop.yi.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: simple patch for portsnap to use wget Message-ID: <op.wohb81l88527sy@ronaldradial.versatec.local> In-Reply-To: <CAKoxK%2B61KJJLKoE5namZ31G9DNUSaqm%2BtXCL=KF%2B6pnXszP0pw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKoxK%2B5iy2R7=cZp38xKZpTbgFd0aZ3H28tVmPnuPR01w=pO4A@mail.gmail.com> <1354040675.3923.3.camel@mjakubik.localdomain> <CAKoxK%2B61KJJLKoE5namZ31G9DNUSaqm%2BtXCL=KF%2B6pnXszP0pw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:52:57 +0100, Luca Ferrari <fluca1978@infinito.it> wrote: >> Certainly not with a dependency on wget, which is not part of the base >> system. Use fetch instead. >> > > Right, so I'm wondering why not using fetch instead of phttpget by > default. Phttpget is more efficient because it uses http pipelining. http://www.daemonology.net/phttpget/ > However I've rewritten everything so that now it allows for the > configuration of fetch or not. The only change is that in the case of > fetch the server name must be used with a protocol since fetch expects > a full URL and not a server name. > > I vote for using fetch by default instead of phttpget. Why not fix the original problem (of url parsing) in phttpget? > > Regards, > Luca Ronald.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.wohb81l88527sy>