vim ports broken.

[Frank J. Laszlo]

Johan van Selst wrote:
> Carlos A. M. dos Santos wrote:
>   
>>>> Choosing "%" to differentiate it, however, was a bad idea. It would
>>>> be better to use a simple underscore.
>>>>         
>>> Why is % any worse than an underscore? As I explained earlier, fetch has no
>>> problem dealing with it. The errors people were posting are server-side,
>>> ftp.freebsd.org has no problems handling it.
>>>       
>> POLA: users get surprised by the "Bad Request" answer and think that
>> the package is broken. So they complain at -ports, generating lengthy
>> email threads.
>>     
>
> I have another suggestion: why not tell it that this specific patch file
> should be fetched from the FreeBSD server and not try all the other vim
> mirror sites. We have a mechanism to do so, which seems appropriate here.
>
>
> Johan
>
> --- Makefile.orig	2009-06-25 10:24:08.000000000 +0200
> +++ Makefile	2009-06-25 10:21:52.000000000 +0200
> @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
>  DISTFILES=	${RELEASE}${EXTRACT_SUFX}
>  
>  PATCH_SITES=	${MASTER_SITES:S|unix|patches/${PORTVERSION:C/\.[0-9a-z]*$//}|}\
> -		ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/local-distfiles/obrien/
> +		ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/local-distfiles/obrien/:local
>  PATCHFILES!=	/usr/bin/jot -s " " -w ${PORTVERSION:C/\.[0-9]*$//}.%03d  \
>  			${PATCHLEVEL} 1 ${PATCHLEVEL}
>  #	bits to remove
> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
>  .for p in ${BADPATCHES}
>  PATCHFILES:=	${PATCHFILES:N7.2.${p}}
>  .endfor
> -PATCHFILES:=	${PATCHFILES:S/041/041%/}
> +PATCHFILES:=	${PATCHFILES:S/041/041%:local/}
>  
>  MAINTAINER?=	obrien at FreeBSD.org
>  COMMENT?=	Vi "workalike", with many additional features
>
>   
I figured there was a mechanism for this, but I honestly did not look 
into it. I would suggest submitting this as a PR so the maintainer see's 
it, as he has yet to comment on this thread.

-- 
Frank Laszlo
laszlof at FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD Ports Committer