Created attachment 164569 [details] shar(1) file for sysutils/phttpget This has been around for awhile. But thought it'd be a nice addition to the ports tree. This is a Pipelined HTTP GET utility, written by Colin Percival. Please see: http://www.daemonology.net/phttpget/ for greater detail. Please find the shar(1) archive, attached, needed to add this port to the sysutils/ category in the ports tree. Please also find a requisite QA LOG, also attached. That's it! Thanks! --Chris
Created attachment 164570 [details] QA LOG for sysutils/phttpget
Comment on attachment 164569 [details] shar(1) file for sysutils/phttpget Removing maintainer-approval + from the patch as there's no port yet.
A commit references this bug: Author: sunpoet Date: Fri Dec 25 19:45:45 UTC 2015 New revision: 404467 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/404467 Log: - Add phttpget 0.2 `phttpget' is a Pipelined HTTP GET utility. This is different from "normal" HTTP in that it allows the HTTP client to have several HTTP requests "in flight" at once, and can dramatically increase performance when a large number of small files need to be downloaded. (This was the case with portsnap, where downloading 300 files of 200 bytes each is not unusual). Note that phttpget is currently extremely minimalist. Please see the website listed below, for a full feature list. WWW: http://www.daemonology.net/phttpget/ PR: 205557 Submitted by: Chris Hutchinson <portmaster@bsdforge.com> Changes: head/sysutils/Makefile head/sysutils/phttpget/ head/sysutils/phttpget/Makefile head/sysutils/phttpget/distinfo head/sysutils/phttpget/files/ head/sysutils/phttpget/files/patch-phttpget.c head/sysutils/phttpget/pkg-descr
Committed. Thanks!
What is the point of adding a ports for something that has been in base since it has been written?
(In reply to Baptiste Daroussin from comment #5) > What is the point of adding a ports for something that has been in base > since it has been written? Fair question, and don't think for one minute that I didn't ask. :-) On 9.3 # which phttpget phttpget: Command not found. On CURRENT (11) # which phttpget phttpget: Command not found. Both have had world && kernels built *several* times. So I felt that *even* if it's possible to get it from base; not getting [by default], made it a fair candidate for ports. :) --Chris
It's installed as /usr/libexec/phttpget since it usually is not called directly but called my freebsd-update/portsnap.
In my opinion the port should be rm'd as soon as possible ... The port reflects the first phttpget code from 2005 and is now easily nine years behind 10.2/9.3/head. Do the compare yourself (port vs. head/usr.sbin/portsnap/phttpget rev. 148871)
My bad. I'll revert this commit soon.
(In reply to Jason Unovitch from comment #7) > It's installed as /usr/libexec/phttpget since it usually is not called > directly but called my freebsd-update/portsnap. Grrr. I know better than having *not* checked there, first! Sorry for the bother. Should I open another pr(1) to request this port be removed? Once again, sorry. --Chris
(In reply to Chris Hutchinson from comment #10) sunpoet@ removed sysutils/phttpget in https://svnweb.FreeBSD.org/changeset/ports/404571 My thoughts at this point is mark this as closed/rejected rather than closed/fixed despite that fact that there was a commit to add it. If someone looks through the history here they can see the addition/removal along with discussion on why where the at a glance search for "phttpget" just reflected the "rejected" PR for it.
(In reply to Jason Unovitch from comment #11) > (In reply to Chris Hutchinson from comment #10) > sunpoet@ removed sysutils/phttpget in > https://svnweb.FreeBSD.org/changeset/ports/404571 > > My thoughts at this point is mark this as closed/rejected rather than > closed/fixed despite that fact that there was a commit to add it. If > someone looks through the history here they can see the addition/removal > along with discussion on why where the at a glance search for "phttpget" > just reflected the "rejected" PR for it. Thanks, Jason! Again, sorry for the bother. --Chris