From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 11 14:37:19 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B897974; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 14:37:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail1.asahi-net.or.jp (mail1.asahi-net.or.jp [202.224.39.197]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A3692124; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 14:37:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from eee.bbnest.net (w133033.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp [121.1.133.33]) by mail1.asahi-net.or.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F661B457; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:37:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from [192.168.1.119] ([192.168.1.119]) (authenticated bits=0) by eee.bbnest.net (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s7BEbDIB078948 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:37:16 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from bland@FreeBSD.org) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Subject: Re: svn commit: r364540 - head/x11/nvidia-settings From: Alexander Nedotsukov In-Reply-To: <20140811062311.GB55398@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:37:12 +0900 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <53e777f9.28cd.621911f7@svn.freebsd.org> <20140810135409.GA22681@FreeBSD.org> <52BDAD7F-864F-4930-8F3D-CCD9B3DFFF72@FreeBSD.org> <20140811062311.GB55398@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 14:37:19 -0000 Alexey, You are not the first one who is asking me to "make things better=E2=80=9D= . The problem is that to my experience they are not better at all. This = port used to stick to NVIDIA master sites in the past and it did not = work well. For example at least top site from the list was having a trouble with = serving 404 error back just stalling connection instead. I recall couple of cases when tar balls were rolled out inplace and then = not pushed to other mirrors. At the same time ftp links I use are the only once which are officially = provided for this port. They always work well. So it is hard to me to buy your argument of having two extra http = mirrors to be an advantage. If you fee like go and fight with Nvidia IT yourself please go and do = it. I will appreciate that. Otherwise I=E2=80=99d prefer to stay where the things are. All the best, Alexander. On 11 =D0=B0=D0=B2=D0=B3. 2014 =D0=B3., at 15:23, Alexey Dokuchaev = wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 07:56:38AM +0900, Alexander Nedotsukov wrote: >> Yes. The list below is different from what MASTER_SITE_NVIDIA = provides. >=20 > It is different, but it's inclusive: with MASTER_SITES=3D > NVIDIA/XFree86/nvidia-settings, ports-mgmt/distilator gives this (URLs > are shortened for clarity): >=20 > 404 [DISTFILE] http://tw.download.nvidia.com/... > 200 [DISTFILE] ftp://download1.nvidia.com/... > 200 [DISTFILE] ftp://download.nvidia.com/... > 404 [DISTFILE] http://jp.download.nvidia.com/... > 404 [DISTFILE] http://us.download.nvidia.com/... > 200 [DISTFILE] http://download.nvidia.com/... > 200 [WWW] http://www.nvidia.com/object/unix.html > 200 [DISTFILE] http://download1.nvidia.com/... >=20 > So, four 200 distfile locations vs. yours mere two (and both FTP, = yuck). >=20 > MASTER_SITE_NVIDIA is correct here, but some mirrors are stale. You = can > ping upstream to see if mirrors just need more time to catch up, or = their > maintainers stopped updating them. >=20 > ./danfe