Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:53:52 -0600 (MDT) From: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, tg@ihf.rwth-aachen.de, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-usrbin@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/ftp complete.c fetch.c util.c Makefile cmds.c cmdtab.c domacro.c extern.h ftp.1 ftp.c ftp_v Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970627085004.2782G-100000@alive.znep.com> In-Reply-To: <199706260201.LAA03854@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Michael Smith wrote: > Garrett Wollman stands accused of saying: > > <<On 25 Jun 1997 13:29:23 +0200, Thomas Gellekum <tg@ihf.rwth-aachen.de> said: > > > > > Michael Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG> writes: > > >> - the ability to access files using either the ftp or http protocols, > > >> and use http proxies for ftp transfers. > > > > > Does this mean we can nuke fetch(1)? > > > > No, it does not. > > Can you enumerate the cases where the new ftp doesn't cover fetch's > behaviour? I'm all for pandering to your bloat-reductionist tendencies > in this case, and would be happy to do all the work to that end. >From what I recall, fetch has a lot more advanced HTTP protocol handling than the new ftp, including the ability to do things like resume aborted transfers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970627085004.2782G-100000>