The vim port needs a refresh

[RW]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 01:13:43 +0200
John Marino wrote:

> On 5/28/2013 01:05, RW wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:33:53 +0200
> > John Marino wrote:

> > In other words downloading every patch twice.
> 
> 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?


> Also, given these
> patches are a couple of kilobytes at most, a compressed tarball of
> 100 patches (or even 700 patches) is negligible.  Even if somebody
> with a cache downloaded it twice, so what?   It's not even noticeable.

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.

> >> At the very, very least maybe only HTTP hosts are listed for VIM (I
> >> just checked bsd.sites.mk, the ftp sites are all at the end of the
> >> list now)
> >
> > All 13 http links would  have to fail before the ftp links are
> > tried.
> 
> 
> So what's the point of having them on the list?  Isn't 13 mirrors
> enough?

Some people may find ftp faster or more reliable - it depends on your
circumstances.

> >> I may have still been on the old bsd.sites.mk with a site>  10
> >> seconds per file.  (this is yet another data point)
> >
> > We already knew that it was slow before January, so that's
> > irrelevant.
> 
> 
> It validated my story as more than anecdotal.

No it didn't because I already told you that there unreliable servers
then.