I have some questions about telnet/telnetd/libtelnet/tn3270 and why FreeBSD is different than other BSDs in this regard

[Alex de Kruijff]

On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 05:52:04AM +0100, Alex de Kruijff wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:34:16PM -0600, Paul Seniura wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Alex,
> > 
> > > Dear Paul,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 04:43:48PM -0600, Paul Seniura wrote:
> > > > It seems NetBSD and OpenBSD continue to include
> > > > telnet+telnetd+tn3270 together under one subdir as part of
> > > > /src/usr.bin -- but FreeBSD moved only the telnet[d] pieces
> > > > to /src/contrib/telnet and eliminated the tn3270 pieces completely.
> > > > 
> > > > (I haven't dug too deep yet in the libtelnet tree, which is one
> > > > piece that FreeBSD does retain as other BSDs have it. 
> > > > But for right now let's stick to the command & daemon parts.)
> > > > 
> > > > I'm seriously debating in my head whether FreeBSD should add back
> > > > the tn3270 pieces to /src/contrib/telnet so that we can match the
> > > > other BSDs albeit in the 'contrib' subtree.
> > > 
> > > I don't understand the word albeit in this line. English is not my
> > > native language, sorry.
> > 
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=albeit
> > :-)
> 
> I did look at my offline dictionary, but this didn't make sence. I just
> stated this, so that I reacted in a strange way it would be clear why
> this was the case.
> 
> > > Why do you want so much for all different groups to be alike?
> > > 
> > > It seem to me that differences are natural when you have diffenent
> > > groups. NetBSD and OpenBSD didn't have ports when FreeBSD started with
> > > the use of ports. And this now is very succeful. We whould have missed
> > > this if all we did was be like the others.
> > 
> > Please look at the history of the BSDs. 
> > The tn3270 command was never in a 'port' to begin with. 
> > It was meant to be a companion to 'telnet' the command, the
> > daemon, and its libraries.  They are intertwined.
> 
> What I mean by this is: that i think having it as a port is a good thing
> recardless of what others do.
> 
> > "The use of ports" has not been successful w/r/t tn3270 itself. 
> > It STILL will not compile correctly, even today.  It was moved in
> > order to allow 'world' to compile without problems.  It was moved
> > *instead* of being fixed.
> 
> Then moving it back will not fix it either. That its not being fixed has
> nothing to do with being a port or not. It has to do with to few people
> who use the port. If it not fixed then that because no one with the
> skill to do so is interesed in fixing it.
> 
> > But the other BSDs have seemingly fixed it, and they left it
> > inside /src/usr.bin/telnet where it belongs -- looking right now
> > today at their CVS trees.  (Yes I will do 'diff' between theirs
> > and ours.)
> 
> You could become the port maintainer. ;-)
> 
> > > I personal feel that getting stuff out of the base system and in to the
> > > port tree is a good thing if it is posible. This is more modulair and
> > > thus is much more flexible. I see this as a good thing.
> > > 
> > > Why should this ports be in the base system? Just because NetBSD or
> > > OpenBSD do? FreeBSD is not OpenBSD or NetBSD
> > 
> > I hope this is not too technical:
> > All BSDs (except for this 'Free' one) presently have tn3270.c
> > together with telnet.c for reasons that become apparent when
> > studying how it works and how it is compiled etc.  As they are
> > presently written, all of telnet[d].c and tn3270.c must use the
> > same macros and other source files from the same 'level' subdir. 
> > That means if something changes for the sake of 'telnet', it had
> > better work with 'tn3270' also.

Yes, this is too technical. I would have to study the file, which i'm
not going to. If you say that it couldn't posibly be a port, like perl5
can, then i will take your word for this.

> > Putting tn3270 over into a port is a 'Free'BSD-only KLUDGE: look
> > at its Makefile under /src/ports/net/tn3270.  It was moved from
> > where it belongs, instead of fixing it to compile and work
> > properly per current specs -- and today it STILL will not compile
> > correctly.  Moving it only acted to permit the rest of the base
> > system ('world') to compile without problems.  Hence I call it a
> > 'kludge' in its present 'Free'BSD-only form.
> 
> But it is posible to have it as a port and working. It just needs some
> one to put in the time to fix the port as it is. You wrongly put the
> cause in it being a port now.
> 
> > I was not 'here' back in 1999 when this decision was made.  (See
> > my reply to Kris, too, please; I show the 'commits' there.)  In
> > 1999, we were using OS/2 which had a fully functional basic
> > PCom/3270 provided with the o.s. for 'free'. ;)  Now I am trying
> > to show TPTB how 'free' o.s.+software can be used, and ran into
> > this stupid kludge almost 5 years too late. :(
> > 
> > By your logic, let's move all of /src/contrib to the appropriate
> > subdirs under /src/ports and not have a built-in telnet or any
> > other such command! ;)
> 
> At least consider it.
> 
> Well perl use to be part of the base system and that was moved in
> FreeBSD 5. Perl works because it was moved and there was efford put in
> so that the port doesn't work.
> 
> -- 
> Alex
> 
> Articles based on solutions that I use:
> http://www.kruijff.org/alex/index.php?dir=docs/FreeBSD/

-- 
Alex

Articles based on solutions that I use:
http://www.kruijff.org/alex/index.php?dir=docs/FreeBSD/