From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 28 00:44:30 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 CD526524; Tue, 28 May 2013 00:44:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from miwi@FreeBSD.org) Received: from bsdhash.org (bsdhash.org [94.23.250.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 683F6950; Tue, 28 May 2013 00:44:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.105] (bgi-206-170.tm.net.my [202.188.206.170]) by bsdhash.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B1A5B512D5; Tue, 28 May 2013 08:44:24 +0800 (MYT) Subject: Re: The vim port needs a refresh Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Martin Wilke In-Reply-To: <51A3F3F8.4030505@marino.st> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:44:22 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: 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> <51A3F3F8.4030505@marino.st> To: John Marino X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Cc: ports@freebsd.org, RW 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 00:44:30 -0000 On the first note, complain about the patches to the upstream, not to = us. This patches problem has been around since forever and so long the = upstream is not changing anything about it, nor do we. About rolling your own = distfile, I completely disagree because we do not know what the = maintaner has changed, and seeing it from the security view, I prefer to get all my patches = from the original mirrors. - Martin P.S. This is solely my personal view and does not reflect the official = portmgr's stand. On May 28, 2013, at 8:02 AM, John Marino wrote: > 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. >>=20 >> Why wouldn't I? Are you seriously suggesting that it's the norm to = build >> a port once and then never build it again? >=20 > 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. >=20 > 2. Every software built from source is built "the first time" on each = server. >=20 > 3. It is nice to cater to new users. >=20 > 4. It's good practice to target the lowest common denominator >=20 >=20 >> 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 >=20 >=20 >> Some people may find ftp faster or more reliable - it depends on your >> circumstances. >=20 > That's not my experience but for the sake of argument I'll accept the = point. It still seems like overkill though. >=20 >=20 >>> It validated my story as more than anecdotal. >>=20 >> No it didn't because I already told you that there unreliable servers >> then. >=20 > 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. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >=20 +-----------------oOO--(_)--OOo-------------------------+ With best Regards, Martin Wilke (miwi_(at)_FreeBSD.org) Mess with the Best, Die like the Rest