On 2022-01-23 10:19, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
Different environments/ different requirements. But habit as much as anything else. Ftp is trivial, has always been available. So I never even need to think about it. I perform mass installs/upgrades in large networks. There is no overhead using ftpHi all,I did not really have an opinion on this, since we never used FTP, but I was a bit surprised by the suggestion to use SSH instead. It never occurred to us that anything but HTTP(S) was possible. We simply run Nginx in a jail serving the packages that Poudriere produces for us. Setup time/effort: 5 minutes. Now after this comment:Am 22.01.2022 um 09:35 schrieb Chris <portmas...@bsdforge.com>:I find it's less "housekeeping" to use ftp(1) setup through inetd(8) for pkg repos, thanvia 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. OTOH Chris, what's keeping you from installing a web server just serving static files?
either through a one-start | inetd. The clients are all started/used at will.It seems to me that removing features also removes value. IMHO the gain from the
removal of transports as trivial as ftp(1) bring little to the table for all concerned. But that's just me. :-) -- Chris
Kind regards, Patrick -- punkt.de GmbH Patrick M. Hausen .infrastructure Kaiserallee 13a 76133 Karlsruhe Tel. +49 721 9109500 https://infrastructure.punkt.de i...@punkt.de AG Mannheim 108285 Geschäftsführer: Jürgen Egeling, Daniel Lienert, Fabian Stein
0xBDE49540.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys