On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 07:59:34AM +0100, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, David Shaw wrote:
>
> >>I'd accept patches that correct this situation...
> >
> >Is it a viable patch to drop gopher support? It's fixable, I'm sure, but
> >is it worth it?
>
> It mostly just a matter of what to work on. Since I don't use gopher myself
> and haven't worked on it at all - I've simply left it as it is. This is the
> way I tend to do with things in curl that no one works on, to at least have
> something lying around when the time comes for someone to step forward and
> turn that particular piece of code into something working. It doesn't work,
> but yet provides a starting point to get it to work.
>
> However, in the case of Gopher I think I agree that the only sane thing
> here would be to cut out the few remainders of support and officially stop
> claiming that libcurl supports gopher. The fact that no one has reported a
> problem with this (until your mail) for several years is an indication that
> veeeeery few users actually use gopher with libcurl.
>
> So, you up to provide a gopher-removing patch?

Sure, here you go.

Note that test222 mentions gopher, but I couldn't remove this as it
would invalidate the test. It's just text there anyway.

Also note I didn't renumber the PROT_* flags in lib/urldata.h to fill
in the hole that removing PROT_GOPHER caused. I wasn't sure if the
actual values were needed somewhere.

David