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 <freebs...@marino.st> 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. >> >> 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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" > +-----------------oOO--(_)--OOo-------------------------+ With best Regards, Martin Wilke (miwi_(at)_FreeBSD.org) Mess with the Best, Die like the Rest _______________________________________________ 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"
