Marius Groeger wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Tolunay,
in message 41DB36C9.3080807@orkun.us you wrote:
I can think of one case where FTP would be desirable. If the host is behind a stateful firewall and TFTP Server is on the other side, the
I'm not sure if it is a good idea to attempt to run TFTP across a firewall. If you need a firewall, you don't want to have TFTP traffic running through it.
...
Wolfgang has higher standards than most of us ;-) and thus has not had the "pleasure" of working with Windows. With Windows XP SP2 firewalling, TFTP loading using a Windows box as the server breaks by default because the firewalling blocks the u-boot TFTP inbound requests.
Which is why the OP wanted to have support _FTP_, and not TFTP.
And I still fail to see why a suitable patch for this, complying to all patch submission rules (most notably the one about not increasing the footprint when the feature is turned off), would be rejected. Granted, it's probably a lot of work, but if the guy is willing to do it...
Regards, Marius
I didn't say it would be rejected. Wolfgang said there would never be such a patch: I don't know if he meant it would be rejected or if he was predicting the future based on what has happened in the past (I suspect the latter).
The beauty of Open Source is that the OP is free to make a FTP patch. If he goes forward, bully for him. If Wolfgang subsequently rejects his patch, NBD, it met the OP's need. Furthermore, if it meets more peoples' needs, they are free to add it to their builds with or without Wolfgang's endorsement.
At this point there really isn't much point discussing hypothetical patches by OPs and hypothetical rejections by Wolfgang.
gvb