From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 27 18:38:28 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 16FE3EAC for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 18:38:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsdml@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77673FC for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 18:38:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.21] (unknown [130.255.16.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 568C143BA9; Mon, 27 May 2013 13:38:19 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <51A3A813.1060908@marino.st> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 20:38:11 +0200 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RW , "ports@FreeBSD.org Ports" Subject: Re: The vim port needs a refresh References: <20130524212318.B967FE6739@smtp.hushmail.com> <20130527140609.3d3b9d23@gumby.homeunix.com> <444ndofstn.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> <20130527153440.020ab20e@gumby.homeunix.com> <51A3798C.9000004@marino.st> <20130527173633.0e196a08@gumby.homeunix.com> <51A38D87.8070102@marino.st> <20130527183620.5ff9d8b0@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20130527183620.5ff9d8b0@gumby.homeunix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 18:38:28 -0000 On 5/27/2013 19:36, RW wrote: > On Mon, 27 May 2013 18:44:55 +0200 > John Marino wrote: > > > >> Great. With the previous mirror I had it would have taken well over >> an hour back when the patch count was 700. > > By default it should be the same mirror if you tested it this year. > Slow and dead mirrors were removed at the beginning of January. > > And you still haven't said whether you have any make.conf settings that > affect the order. I didn't change any settings. It may have been an FTP site rather than an HTTP site. I seem to recall some work to move HTTP over FTP fairly recently. > >> It's obviously true since multiple users are seeing it. (the whole >> 1080 movie analogy, remember?) > > It not obviously true that you aren't all either making this problem > with your make.conf settings or referring to a problem that existed last > year. It was THIS year and it wasn't that long ago. January in the worst case. But now you're explicitly telling multiple users that they didn't in fact experience this?