Ben Wing wrote:
yes, we should switch to an http package installation system. (really
really really; http is *much* more reliable than ftp these days and
works through firewalls consistently)
Just as a side note: I have code that adds http and ssh transport support to
package installation. It's based on package*.el from 21.14-CVS and on
functionality from package-transport.el by Steve that got posted here many
months ago.
The code is upwards compatible to existing descriptions, to ensure that
customized package-get-download-sites continues to work. It adds an optional
fourth attribute to the download site description, the protocol that can be used
to access the given site and directory. (Actually, one should and could use URLs
as site specifiers, IMO. But that can be a later addition.)
Btw, the code does _not_ use the concept of Steve's package-transport.el that
had a global variable that denotes the transport protocol. IMNSHO the transport
protocol is associated with the site and is not a user preference. One could
have a user preference that filters out all download sites which don't support
the respective transport protocol, but that hasn't been implemented yet.
I haven't posted the code yet to xemacs-patches because it doesn't support http
proxies yet, doesn't support http ports other than 80, there is a problem with
overwrite semantics of copy-file, and I have to make more tests. Cleanup
(comments) is needed, too. If somebody wants to see that 80%-ready code
nevertheless, I can make it available, of course.
Cheers,
Joachim
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Joachim Schrod Email: jschrod(a)acm.org
Roedermark, Germany