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

On 2022-01-24 10:16, Chris wrote:
> On 2022-01-24 10:08, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 09:29:45AM -0800, Chris wrote:
>>> On 2022-01-24 03:00, Daniel Engberg wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > I just wanted to chime in on Alexander's (netchild@) mail and I fully agree.
>>> > Looking at base we already have a lot of contrib and since we need to
>>> > adapt each
>>> > software project to our build framework a lot tends to get dated quickly and
>>> > currently is so I don't see the benefit importing more at all. I would
>>> > also like
>>> > to highly advice against importing software which is considered dead
>>> > upstream,
>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thttpd .
>>> >
>>> > If anything, something like https://github.com/emikulic/darkhttpd or
>>> > similar which
>>> > would be very easy to maintain and is active
>>> 
>>> FWIW I'd also like to vote +1 on NO additions. I only vote in favor of ftp
>>> in this
>>> thread because we have a million year... OK 30 plus years of track record
>>> for it and
>>> it just works. Tho I must admit I find @bapt's recent tcp proposal an
>>> interesting and
>>> appealing idea. :-)
>> 
>> The proposal is now in anyway ;)
> Uh, Oh. ;-)
> 
>> 
>> I am just struggling on the name of the scheme: tcp:// or pkg+tcp:// (with 
>> a rename
>> of ssh into pkg+ssh:// :D)
> 
> +1 for tcp://
OTOH maybe a pkg:// proto would be even better still 
(https://www.iana.org/protocols/apply)

> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Bapt
> -- Chris
> 
> P.S. You must REALLY hate ftp(1) to have gone to all this trouble. ;-)