Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 12:12:07 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> To: mark@grondar.za (Mark Murray) Cc: mark@grondar.za, FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.Org Subject: Re: DES, crypt and eBones Message-ID: <199506161912.MAA05550@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> In-Reply-To: <199506161847.UAA14596@grumble.grondar.za> from "Mark Murray" at Jun 16, 95 08:47:25 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > I disagree. eBones was to and does replace the 4.4BSD lite supplied > > Kerberos tree. I can use ``secure'' without eBones at all. If you > > bundle the two into one tree it is going to complicate things like > > sup targets, source tree management in src/Makefile, etc. > > OK - I'll buy this. How would you then solve the problem of something > currently sitting in secure that needs bits of eBones and vice versa? > For example, in secure sits telnet[d] with obvious Kerberization. telnet[d] with kerberization should go in eBones, since eBones was to replace the kerberization stuff supplied by 4.4BSD lite. Garrett had some grand plan here, but has dropped the ball when the eBones stuff was done (Not his fault, this was taken over by some one else who has been unavaliable to maintain it). > > Binary sets should match source sets, otherwise you are heading for > > trouble :-(. > > I'd buy this if there was not so much crosstalk between the packages. > Solutions? One possible one is to move libraries to secure? (yuk) I need a better picture in my head of just what is going on in there right now. I have not looked at that part of the tree since it was changed from the original 4.4 lite code and am not so sure that the initial change was a good idea at all... -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Accurate Automation Company Custom computers for FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199506161912.MAA05550>