>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