On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 08:06:38PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2015/06/01 10:20, patrick keshishian wrote: > > On 6/1/15, Sunil Nimmagadda <su...@nimmagadda.net> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:16:09PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote: > > >> screw ftp. just make a new util http, that just does http. > > Sorry, it's not good enough to replace ftp(1) for system use without > ftp. Like it or not, ports fetches need FTP and can't really rely on > installing something for ports to do that.
Yes, but splitting these protocols is good, right? IMHO, having a clean and simple http(1) and a (more) clean ftp(1) with the http bits removed makes sense to me. > > > + if (gethostname(hostname, sizeof(hostname)) != 0) > > > + hostname[0] = '\0'; > > > > Pretty sure the "Host:" header should indicate the remote host, > > not local. > > Yep. And watch out to use the correct hostname for proxies. > > > But afaik HTTP/1.0 doesn't require that header. > > Host: is pretty much required, one particular thing for OpenBSD is that > fw_update mirrors need it. >
