Re: rpm & ssh - Will the 2 be incorporated w/ each other soon?

[Jeff Johnson <jbj JBJ ORG>]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:56:02AM -0500, John Aldrich wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, you wrote:
> > Jeff Johnson wrote:
> > > 
> > > - The major impediment to adding protocol support to rpm is one of
> > >   taste and design:
> > > 
> > >     Should rpm have support for any (including FTP/HTTP) protocols at all?
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Someone else might have an example why this might be useful, but my
> > first instinct is to say no; let other utilities handle the "fetching"
> > of packages over the network.  There doesn't seem to be any real gain
> > from adding the protocols into rpm; just use a second utility (rsync,
> > sup, scp, ftp, etc) to get the packages.
> > 
> Ok... color me ignorant here... how does the "network install" work currently?
> Does it invoke FTP separately? If so, that'll work for SCP as well, as far as
> I'm concerned. ;-) I'm just an "end user" (an EXPERIENCED end user, mind, but
> still just an "end user" <G>)
>  	John

Depends on what you mean by "network install".

rpm has a mostly complete FTP client, and a somewhat primitive HTTP/1.[01]
client, internally that are used on the command line. Anaconda, the Red Hat
installer, which was the reason to add FTP/HTTP support to rpm in the 1st
place, no longer needs/uses rpmlib's FTP/HTTP clients, and does a better
job at "network installs" than the rpm CLI does.

73 de Jeff

-- 
Jeff Johnson	ARS N3NPQ
jbj@jbj.org	(jbj@redhat.com)
Chapel Hill, NC