From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jan 5 02:04:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA19979 for current-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 02:04:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA19944 for ; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 02:03:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.6.9) with ESMTP id CAA04726 for ; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 02:03:57 -0800 (PST) To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Time to retire fetch? Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 02:03:56 -0800 Message-ID: <4721.883994636@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I just noticed that FTP in -current now supports http:// style fetches, a feature which seems to have crept in under my nose during the sync with NetBSD's ftp client. Given that, the questions now in my mind are: 1. Do we want to retire fetch and just use ftp now as our FETCH_CMD in -current? Would any fetch features be missed that would also be overtly difficult to merge into the ftp client? Strengthening one tool rather than putting two into competition is obviously a worthy goal if it's possible to do it. 2. Do we simply want to ignore this new feature of ftp, perhaps under the premise that having an ftp client fetch http URLs is rather counter-intuitive if one is a stickler for naming conventions, and just go on like we are now? 3. Given that ftp probably doesn't deal well with the file:/ URLs that can also be passed to fetch(1) from the ports collection, does fetch(1) perhaps want to stick around but simply become a smaller pre-parsing script which hands its work off to other tools rather than doing it itself? I've no clear preference right now, I'm just musing out loud. Comments? Jordan