Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 02:57:23 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Time to retire fetch? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.980105025630.4508L-100000@current1.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <4721.883994636@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
how about making the one program respond to 2 names.. On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > 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 >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.980105025630.4508L-100000>