From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 28 00:02:16 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 5C4AFAB9 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 00:02:16 +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 35989656 for ; Tue, 28 May 2013 00:02:15 +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 B98A343B51; Mon, 27 May 2013 19:02:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <51A3F3F8.4030505@marino.st> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 02:02:00 +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 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> <51A3A813.1060908@marino.st> <20130527210924.36432f32@gumby.homeunix.com> <51A3C331.901@marino.st> <20130528000505.6c506b1a@gumby.homeunix.com> <51A3E8A7.7030106@marino.st> <20130528004823.71bd739a@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20130528004823.71bd739a@gumby.homeunix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Tue, 28 May 2013 00:02:16 -0000 On 5/28/2013 01:48, RW wrote: > On Tue, 28 May 2013 01:13:43 +0200 >> 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? 1. Yes, that can happen. I'm working on some servers with 1600 days uptime (should be 2300 days but the data center relocated them a few years ago) and most of the software on them is from 2007. 2. Every software built from source is built "the first time" on each server. 3. It is nice to cater to new users. 4. It's good practice to target the lowest common denominator > 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. If you are going to use dialup as an example, then it's much, much worse to download them all individually. Unless you're building vim repeatedly and often, the opportunity for double-downloads isn't that high. If it's a real worry then the 100-patch rollups would be better than the full aggregates. > Some people may find ftp faster or more reliable - it depends on your > circumstances. That's not my experience but for the sake of argument I'll accept the point. It still seems like overkill though. >> It validated my story as more than anecdotal. > > No it didn't because I already told you that there unreliable servers > then. That doesn't invalidate what I said. You can't assume everyone portsnaps daily. A commit in January might not trickle down for months. All you can say is, "yes, that was the case but a PR was written against it and since closed, please try again with a current port tree". Plus I think you said it after I told the story.