RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> 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. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"