From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 28 10:47:17 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A827D2 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:47:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ronald-freebsd8@klop.yi.org) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.78]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 821558FC15 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:47:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TdfAh-0003nd-Vo for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:47:16 +0100 Received: from [81.21.138.17] (helo=ronaldradial.versatec.local) by smtp.greenhost.nl with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdfAh-0005eJ-5e for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:47:15 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: simple patch for portsnap to use wget References: <1354040675.3923.3.camel@mjakubik.localdomain> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:47:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Ronald Klop" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.11 (Win32) X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Score: -0.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Scan-Signature: 4052b6d1c9976086d5ab5ce040fcf5b8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:47:17 -0000 On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:52:57 +0100, Luca Ferrari wrote: >> Certainly not with a dependency on wget, which is not part of the base >> system. Use fetch instead. >> > > Right, so I'm wondering why not using fetch instead of phttpget by > default. Phttpget is more efficient because it uses http pipelining. http://www.daemonology.net/phttpget/ > However I've rewritten everything so that now it allows for the > configuration of fetch or not. The only change is that in the case of > fetch the server name must be used with a protocol since fetch expects > a full URL and not a server name. > > I vote for using fetch by default instead of phttpget. Why not fix the original problem (of url parsing) in phttpget? > > Regards, > Luca Ronald.