This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: UPDATE: Active FTP Issue with inetutils 1.5
Curt Gran (crazykz) wrote:
> I did some more research this week reading though RFC959 about FTP and
> have determined that the active data connection initiated from the
> server must be port 20 if your FTP daemon is running on port 21. The
> RFC refers to the control port as "L". Later in the document L is
> stated as equal to 21. The data connection is to be initiated at L-1
> or port 20 if you're running the daemon on port 21.
Now THIS is the kind of bug report I can appreciate! Not only did Curt R
the M, he went and read the RFCs as well. That's dedication...
> Here is the response I received from Sergey, one of the inetutils
> developers, about this issue:
>> Since this was the historical ftpd behavior, I will restore it. In the
>> meantime, please apply the attached patch and let me know if it works
>> for you.
And a patch, no less!
> So it seems that this will be fixed going forward. I'm not sure how
> inetutils gets ported to cygwin, or if it's even a port for that
> matter, but I'm hoping that someone will be able to update cygwin with
> the latest inetutils once this fix has been applied.
Yep, there are quite a few cygwin-specific patches to allow inetd to run
on cygwin. It's definitely a port.
68 files changed, 1872 insertions(+), 296 deletions(-)
(some of these are backwards-compatibility changes for now-deprecated
cygwinisms that I will remove about 6 months after cygwin-1.7.0 goes
live, so it's not QUITE as bad as it looks.)
> Could someone help me understand how we might be able to get this fix
> into cygwin or when it could be available for download?
I'm currently in the process of rebuilding all of "my" packages;
inetutils is on the list and I'm making good progress plowing through
that list. So, I should be able to get to it soon; most likely within
the next week or two.
Thank you for doing such a thorough job tracking this down. I saw your
first message on this topic, and frankly I had no idea why the behavior
changed from 1.3.x, nor if it was intentional upstream. Sergey was the
right person to answer your quesstion, and I'm glad you followed thru on
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html