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. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"