> > 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.
Maybe. But there is little point in showing a chunk of code which does not get close to satisfying the preconditions which have been described.
