Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 15:34:40 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The vim port needs a refresh Message-ID: <20130527153440.020ab20e@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <444ndofstn.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> References: <20130524212318.B967FE6739@smtp.hushmail.com> <20130527140609.3d3b9d23@gumby.homeunix.com> <444ndofstn.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 27 May 2013 09:36:20 -0400 Lowell Gilbert wrote: > RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> writes: > > I prefer it the way it is; those patch files are cached in the > > distfiles directory, so only new patches need be downloaded. I can't > > say I've ever noticed it being slow. If you roll them up into one > > file the whole thing needs to be download every time a patch is > > added. If you combine a tarball with individual newer patch, it's > > no better than the current situation with caching. > > There's plenty of middle ground. Re-rolling the tarball every time a > new patch is added would definitely be worse than the current > situation, but rolling lots of long-standing patches into a > much-smaller number of collective downloads would be an improvement > for some people without hurting anyone else. It would hurt people with a slow connections who would end-up having to download most of the patches twice. I've a lot more sympathy with people in that situation than with someone who doesn't cache and then complains it's slow. It wouldn't matter if this were KDE4, but VIM is the kind of port that's likely to be present on a minimalist install.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130527153440.020ab20e>