Re: [HEADSUP] Deprecation of the ftp support in pkg

On 2022-01-22 00:09, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> 22 janv. 2022 08:47:57 Chris <portmaster@bsdforge.com>:
> 
>> On 2022-01-21 23:31, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>> 22 janv. 2022 08:25:47 Chris <portmaster@bsdforge.com>:
>>> On 2022-01-20 06:25, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>> We plan to remove the support for fetching packages over ftp for the 
>>>>> next
>>>>> releases of pkg (probably 1.18)
>>>> Must be a stupid question. But I'll ask anyway; Why the effort to start 
>>>> removing transports?
>>> Because maintaining ftp has a cost, number of line of code, user support 
>>> etc.
>>> if you have a strong reason to use ftp which
>>>>> cannot be fixed by switching to any other supported protocols like ssh 
>>>>> or http,
>>>>> please do share.
>>>> Local repos.
>>>> ftp(1) is cheap. Other transports are (usually) more expensive.
>>>> 
>> Thanks for taking the time to reply.
>> 
>>> ssh which is supported is as cheap if not cheaper.
>> Technically that's incorrect. But as I see you've also rejected 2 other 
>> requests. It's
>> clear that this topic is not actually up for debate. So I'll say no more on 
>> the subject.
>>> Bapt
>> -- Chris
> 
> It is up for debate, I have been told we need something in base to which I 
> replied
> ssh is in base, so fill that requirement, you have said it is cheap no 
> explaining
> what you call cheap, I say ssh is cheap as well as in not more complicated 
> to
> configure, provide a path and here we are.
> 
> You asked the reason for the removal I explained them, if ftp was free of 
> cost I
> won t care about keeping it.
> 
> So up to now noone gave an detailed argument in favour of ftp, which ssh or 
> other
> transport cannot provide as well.
Fair enough. Sorry if I misunderstood.
I find it's less "housekeeping" to use ftp(1) setup through inetd(8) for pkg 
repos, than
via ssh. I have no keys to care for. I am able to setup enormous intranets 
w/o any key exchange.
ftp/inetd is in base. It seems "cheaper" both in resources as well as setup / 
usage. This works
equally well for internets with the addition of an allow list (IP addresses). 
Where anything
not in that list is dropped.

That's my take on it.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
> 
> Bapt
-- Chris