Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 08:06:07 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> To: "Patrick M. Hausen" <hausen@punkt.de> Cc: Chris <portmaster@bsdforge.com>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Deprecation of the ftp support in pkg Message-ID: <20220124080607.Horde.Qdg4TGaiUbEK2BiO45HV8zG@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <DEF3FF17-5F38-4E1E-A55C-7E7472826AB9@punkt.de> References: <20220120142519.a5juoe75oppmnyby@aniel.nours.eu> <f1aca07d3cedd30b9a1df6624e950ffb@bsdforge.com> <e10f85c4-ed28-4475-bcbf-d4e572a6b954@FreeBSD.org> <d284c4d5d415fc17d3d7fbed354ddc77@bsdforge.com> <c93d717c-a62e-44ab-b5bf-f109810d65c4@FreeBSD.org> <a517d06c2faeed9883d5da787e4307ed@bsdforge.com> <DEF3FF17-5F38-4E1E-A55C-7E7472826AB9@punkt.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting "Patrick M. Hausen" <hausen@punkt.de> (from Sun, 23 Jan 2022 19:19:57 +0100): >> Am 22.01.2022 um 09:35 schrieb Chris <portmaster@bsdforge.com>: >> I find it's less "housekeeping" to use ftp(1) setup through >> inetd(8) for pkg repos, than >> via ssh. > > I understand the appeal of FTP. > Maybe this discussion is focusing on the wrong topic. Perhaps > we should consider including a light weight way to serve HTTP(S) > in base? Like Lighttpd, which as far as I know comes with a BSD > 3-clause equivalent license. > > But then the general tendency has been to remove network services > from base rather than introduce them. Like e.g. BIND. > > So I really have no idea what the general opinion is, just wanted > to throw in that IMHO HTTPS is the best protocol to the task and > if some way to serve that could be included in base, I for one would > appreciate that. Personally I think that a http(s) server is not needed in base, as long as we don't need it for something in base (and I wouldn't mind if ftpd would get removed from base for the same reason). Installing a package is easy enough (no matter if for http or ftp). I think in this thread it was mentioned that someone didn't want to install 3rd party software for this. I still can't wrap my head around that part...: - we talk about a tool which is used to exclusively install 3rd party software (pkg) - this tool itself is installed like a 3rd party software (package/port, the system-pkg is only a bootstrap) - and the complete context is serving 3rd party software from a tool which builds 3rd party software locally (poudriere) or at least a downloaded subset from FreeBSD - poudriere is also not in the base system but installed like a 3rd party software - maintaining a list of software you are interested in (be it for poudriere or for automated downloads of FreeBSD packages into a local repo) seems more effort to me, than setting up one more 3rd party software for local file distribution I wanted to propose here to include config snippeds for apache/nginx/thttp for such an use-case to decrease the configuration burden, but this seems to be already the case (at least for nginx/apache). I can't see within 30sec any docs about this in the poudriere wiki, so maybe adding a prominent pointer to it there might be an improvement? Bye, Alexander. -- http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander@Leidinger.net: PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild@FreeBSD.org : PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20220124080607.Horde.Qdg4TGaiUbEK2BiO45HV8zG>