From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 27 13:36:31 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F49ACD7 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 13:36:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: from be-well.ilk.org (be-well.ilk.org [23.30.133.173]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA4327B for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 13:36:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lowell-desk.lan (lowell-desk.lan [172.30.250.41]) by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5676433C2A; Mon, 27 May 2013 09:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lowell-desk.lan (Postfix, from userid 1147) id A002939822; Mon, 27 May 2013 09:36:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Lowell Gilbert To: RW Subject: Re: The vim port needs a refresh References: <20130524212318.B967FE6739@smtp.hushmail.com> <20130527140609.3d3b9d23@gumby.homeunix.com> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 09:36:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130527140609.3d3b9d23@gumby.homeunix.com> (RW's message of "Mon, 27 May 2013 14:06:09 +0100") Message-ID: <444ndofstn.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 13:36:31 -0000 RW writes: > On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:23:18 -0400 > Kenta Suzumoto wrote: > > >> - It fetches almost 700 patches from what seems like a dial-up >> connection in AUSTRALIA. >> >> You might as well be downloading a 1080p movie from a rock in the >> north pole, because that's about how fast it is. This can be very >> easily avoided by putting all the patches into a single tarball and >> hosting it anywhere decent. I've seen someone in ##freebsd on >> freenode handing out a tarball with all the patches many times, and >> everyone asks "why isn't this the default? why is some random guy >> giving me distfiles?" etc. Seems like a no-brainer. > > 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. -- Rick Astley was not harmed in the making of this communication.