Re: A proposed drastic cleanup of the telnet build.

From: Ruslan Ermilov (ru_at_freebsd.org)
Date: 06/05/03

  • Next message: Terry Lambert: "Re: A proposed drastic cleanup of the telnet build." 
    Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:09:03 +0300
To: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org>

    On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 12:40:15PM +0100, Mark Murray wrote:
    [...]
    > > I'm not so sure about this. If it would be possible to extract
    > > the crypto bits of the telnet sources to separate source files,
    > > and leave them under src/crypto/, I think that would be the best,
    > > but if it's too hard, well, the price could be paid.
    >
    > The point is that src/crypto is the part of the tree that will be
    > trimmed if there is a ban on crypto source. Part of the same point
    > is to avoid having duplicate sources, resulting in folks editing
    > only one and having code divergence between the two.
    >
    I understand this. I just thought that it maybe possible
    to extract the crypto bits out of sources into separate
    .c and .h files, so that we need to compile them together
    with non-crypto *.[ch] if we need crypto telnet. I now
    see that this is nearly impossible; the crypto bits are
    scattered all around the sources. But I have another
    important question here:

    Are the telnet sources really considered crypto sources?
    Yes, they use crypto functionality if compiled with the
    corresponding options, but they just USE them, they
    don't PROVIDE them. As such, should we treat them as
    restricted? If yes, I'd like to (please) hear why are
    they treated as such? If not, then the solution is
    obvious, keep them under src/*/(lib)telnet(d).

    Cheers, 

    -- 
Ruslan Ermilov		Sysadmin and DBA,
ru@sunbay.com		Sunbay Software Ltd,
ru@FreeBSD.org		FreeBSD committer

  • Next message: Terry Lambert: "Re: A proposed drastic cleanup of the telnet build."