Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 00:33:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Status of lukemftpd? (was: cvs commit: src/etc inetd.conf (fwd)) Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021027002550.73222J-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20021027021440.GB58312@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> > (1) All references to lukemftpd as "the ftpd" be corrected to indicate
> > lukemftpd is not the default. Most of these are leaked references
> > from lukemftpd man pages that were not updated in the import.
>
> We typically don't rewrite contrib'ed vendor branch code. On some of my
> systems lukemftp is THE ftpd, so they do apply.
Just to make it completely clear what I'm talking about here: we do have a
"the ftpd", because we install it as /usr/libexec/ftpd. Lukemftpd is
installed as /usr/libexec/lukemftpd. Documentation should refer to the
binaries and man pages correctly. One specific example of this is
ftpd.conf(5), which incorrectly stats:
NAME
ftpd.conf - ftpd(8) configuration file
It's not the configuration file for ftpd(8), it's the configuration file
for lukemftpd(8). Likewise, the cross-references are wrong. Similarly,
lukemftpd(8) refers to itself as ftpd(8) (which it's not), and the command
as ftpd (which it's not). Incorrect man pages help no one: this action
item was to correct the incorrect (and patently misleading) man pages.
While there are many inaccuracies in our system man pages, we do try not
to intentionally introduce them, and we also try to fix them when we find
errors.
> > (2) Remove reference to lukemftpd in inetd.conf: it looks a little silly
> > to have a warning there, and the only purpose of listing something in
> > inetd.conf is if you plan to have it be the one users turn on.
>
> We do intend for people to turn it on. It should stay where it is.
The most basic implementation of a change here would consist of sorting
ftpd above lukemftpd, and indicating it is available as an alternative. I
believe ftpd should be listed first for a number of reasons, not all
specious:
(1) It's the ftpd we've shipped previously, and is "the" ftpd;
putting it first increases the chances that a user looking for
"the" ftpd with the behavior from earlier FreeBSD versions
finds what they are looking for. It also makes it more
clear that the warning applies only to lukemftpd.
(2) "ftpd" sorts before "lukemftpd" by resonable notions of
alphabetic
(3) ftpd implements the standard authentication and user
management frameworks for FreeBSD.
In addition, from a backward compatibility perspective, lukemftpd counts
as "shoot feet".
> > (4) The release notes indicating lukemftpd has been imported should be
> > updated to indicate it is not the "default" and that it is feature
> > incomplete.
>
> It is not incomplete -- it has a fine set of functionalty. In fact it
> has larger functionality in that it is imperlious to PAM f*&king over
This addressed in previous e-mail. Note that in my e-mail (in a section
you neatly trimmed), I suggested a spectrum of possible things we could
do, ranging from "document it more clearly" (non-optional if it stays), to
"remove it" in various forms. I'm not saying we do any particular one of
these in a highly firm manner, but we do need to do at least one of them
before the release.
Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects
robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021027002550.73222J-100000>