From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Feb 16 12:32:44 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B068737B4EC for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:32:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA16773; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:30:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA15890; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:30:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate) From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14989.36339.884430.66247@nomad.yogotech.com> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:30:43 -0700 (MST) To: Matt Dillon Cc: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group , Dag-Erling Smorgrav , Mark Murray , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: List of things to move from main tree to ports (was Re: Wish List (was: Re: The /usr/bin/games bikeshed again)) In-Reply-To: <200102161932.f1GJWN002324@earth.backplane.com> References: <200102161917.f1GJHPl29820@cwsys.cwsent.com> <200102161932.f1GJWN002324@earth.backplane.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > :One could say the same about the "r" commands, telnet, and ftp. For > :telnet and ftp: Extremely controversial. For the "r" commands, I'd > :rate the issue as half way between controversial and extremely > :controversial. What do you think? > : > :Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 > :Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 > > Yes, I agree. 'telnet' and 'ftp' would be extremely controversial > (I'd like to keep them myself). The various 'r' commands rlogin, rsh, > etc are in the middle. > > I'll separate the daemons from the clients. I think the daemons, > e.g. 'telnetd', 'rshd', 'rexecd', 'rlogind' are in the middle, possibly > even slightly less controversial then the client commands 'rlogin', 'rsh'. > > I think it may be possible to come to agreement to moving the daemons to > ports. Not if I have anything to say about it. Great examples of why r* is needed in a internal development environment. Remove CVS (from a Windows box) with decent 'CVS' security require R* access, since PSERVER doesn't work well. I could go on and on. However, I'm with Jason in that we should limit the initial stuff to games. One thing at a time. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message