A proposed drastic cleanup of the telnet build.
ru at freebsd.org
Thu Jun 5 05:09:21 PDT 2003
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).
Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA,
ru at sunbay.com Sunbay Software Ltd,
ru at FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/attachments/20030605/502037f0/attachment.bin
More information about the freebsd-arch