Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:34:54 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> To: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: So, AGAIN, why was tcpdump moved? Message-ID: <98574.954491694@zippy.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:28:22 PST." <200003310828.AAA02707@windsor.research.att.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Just out of curiosity, why is there an "AGAIN" in the subject line, > since this is the first email I've gotten on the subject? Sorry, the first queries about this probably didn't go directly to you since it was only yesterday that I actually bothered to go track down the specific commit which resulted in this behavior in 4.0-RELEASE. There's been general mutterings but no conclusions. > tcpdump is capable of decrypting ESP, if you give it the key and if it's > linked with libcrypto. Since IPSEC is part of FreeBSD, and libcrypto > is part of FreeBSD, I figured it would be a nice thing to have. Agreed. > It didn't occur to me that this would change where tcpdump lived > (i.e. it seemed like libcrypto was part of FreeBSD) so it wasn't an > explicit choice on my part to move distributions. I agree that's a bad > side effect. It's easy to disable the decrypting-ESP feature if the > disadvantage of having it is greater than the advantage. I think most people are pretty flabbergasted that tcpdump is gone from the bindist, so yes, we should definitely see to this side-effect. That said, isn't there some way we could build it twice, once for the crypto dist and once for the bindist? That would mean that the crypto distribution copy simply blops over the bin distribution version if selected and POLA is fully obeyed. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?98574.954491694>