On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 09:49:35PM +0900, itojun@iijlab.net wrote:
> >The distfile to which our package relates is different to the one on
> >sourceforge.  The alternatives are thus to:  (a) use the distfile on
> >sourceforge, and update the package according to what has been changed
> >in the meantime (and for which I'm not qualified), or (b) continue to
> >use the distfile that is in place on ftp.netbsd.org.  I have not had
> >good experience downloading distfiles from sourceforge recently (and I
> >have downloaded a lot of them), and so I chose to use ftp.netbsd.org.
> 
> 	I understand that there are two choices, but I cannot understand
> 	why you have picked (b).  download performance/slowness/whatever is
> 	certainly location dependent, and MASTER_SITES settings affects
> 	anyone on the globe.  i don't think it reasonable to pick 
> 	ftp.netbsd.org from download issue in your location.
> 	or is the download issue universal to everyone?  any stats/whatever?
> 
> 	and for (a), do you have ideas why they replaced the distfile on
> 	sourceforge?  didn't they fix any critical bug? (if we pick
> 	ftp.netbsd.org distfile we would use a version with more bug)
> 
> itojun

OK, I shall make it point to MASTER_SITE_BACKUP, rather than a hardcoded
ftp.netbsd.org.

The stats I have are:

sourceforge to .uk: 6 KB/s
ftp.netbsd.org to .uk: 49 KB/s

over a 2Mb/s pipe.

I have no idea why the distfile has changed on sourceforge.

Regards,
Alistair