ransom1982 at gmail.com
Thu May 14 18:46:46 MST 2009
> I think I caught your drift with the caps in your previous message, but it's
> a bit discouraging and doesn't yet answer the problem I raised awhile back.
> To recap, because of security concerns with having anonymous FTP access, one
> group I work with effectively denied us the ability to set up a repository.
> If HTTP is not required of front-ends, then you MUST have an FTP repository
> to get consistent coverage among the front-ends. I'm not hearing a clear
> argument for why HTTP shouldn't become the standard except that "Our scripts
> for generating zipped modules doesn't work reliably" and "it's hard to
> create a list of modules from different formats." Are both of these
> I'm trying to understand why FTP is the preferred method when HTTP is a
> lower common denominator between providers. Could you explain that to me?
> My goal isn't to push an agenda but find a way to set up a repository that
> will work with all front-ends but does not use anonymous FTP.
> Mildly discouraged,
I don't think there's any need for discouragement Daniel. I believe
what Troy is saying is that *frontends* should support FTP. He's also
saying that he intends to add support for HTTP in the engine. At that
point, both FTP and HTTP repositories will be possible and should be
supported by all frontends. So the requirement isn't on the
repositories being a certain way, but frontends being able to handle
both types as a common denominator. Troy can correct me if I'm
I will be happy to see HTTP support for installmgr.
One additional request that I have would be to allow installing a
single zip from somewhere on the file system. Will this be possible
with the proposed implementation? I'm willing to help with this, as I
want it in Xiphos and was intending to implement it there, but it
would be better to have in the library.
More information about the sword-devel