Well, I imagine a short answer is that most mirrors are graciously provided by third parties, and if they decide to provide FTP access then that's what we've got - it's out of our control.
If http access is also possible to some of these repos, then I'm not sure why we'd choose ftp over http - perhaps better support for resuming downloads? Dunno. Maybe my reply will get some more knowledgable people in here to answer. -- Cerebral Mircea Bardac wrote: > Don't know whom to send this... so I'm replying to myself on the maillist... > some people call it a "bump". > > Isn't there anyone who can answer this? > > Thanks, > Mircea > > On Saturday 04 March 2006 09:46, Mircea Bardac wrote: > >> Few days ago I have looked into a Kubuntu installation >> in /etc/apt/sources.lst. The following question crossed my mind: what would >> be the advantage of choosing HTTP over FTP mirrors? I then thought of the >> complicated FTP protocol (active and passive connections) and switched >> every ftp to http. To no surprise, the connections were established in an >> instant, compared to a FTP connection (and I was connecting somewhere in >> the country, over a very large connection = let's just say I was able to >> download with 1 MByte/sec). >> >> Today, I do a pacman -Syu and what do I see: pacman stalling before >> downloading a package. It quickly remembered me of that Kubuntu system >> configured to download from FTP repositories. I take a look >> at /etc/pacman.d/whatever and what do I see? Lots of FTP repositories. >> >> Very short question: WHY? >> >> Thanks. >> Mircea >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > arch mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
