From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 5 05:43:40 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89A7337B405; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 05:43:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (storm.FreeBSD.org.uk [194.242.157.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C767443FBF; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 05:43:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (Ugrondar@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h55ChbuD075164; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:43:37 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: (from Ugrondar@localhost)h55ChbQX075163; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:43:37 +0100 (BST) X-Authentication-Warning: storm.FreeBSD.org.uk: Ugrondar set sender to mark@grondar.org using -f Received: from grondar.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])h55CUqHh013692; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:30:52 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) From: Mark Murray Message-Id: <200306051230.h55CUqHh013692@grimreaper.grondar.org> To: Ruslan Ermilov In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:09:03 +0300." <20030605120903.GB53363@sunbay.com> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:30:52 +0100 Sender: mark@grondar.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,FROM_NO_LOWER,IN_REP_TO, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES version=2.55 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A proposed drastic cleanup of the telnet build. X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 12:43:41 -0000 Ruslan Ermilov writes: > On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 12:40:15PM +0100, Mark Murray wrote: > [...] > > > I'm not so sure about this. If it would be possible to extract > > > the crypto bits of the telnet sources to separate source files, > > > and leave them under src/crypto/, I think that would be the best, > > > but if it's too hard, well, the price could be paid. > >=20 > > The point is that src/crypto is the part of the tree that will be > > trimmed if there is a ban on crypto source. Part of the same point > > is to avoid having duplicate sources, resulting in folks editing > > only one and having code divergence between the two. > >=20 > I understand this. I just thought that it maybe possible > to extract the crypto bits out of sources into separate > =2Ec and .h files, so that we need to compile them together > with non-crypto *.[ch] if we need crypto telnet. I now > see that this is nearly impossible; the crypto bits are > scattered all around the sources. But I have another > important question here: > > Are the telnet sources really considered crypto sources? > Yes, they use crypto functionality if compiled with the > corresponding options, but they just USE them, they > don't PROVIDE them. As such, should we treat them as > restricted? If yes, I'd like to (please) hear why are > they treated as such? If not, then the solution is > obvious, keep them under src/*/(lib)telnet(d). Hmm. Good point. Moving them makes good sense. I'd prefer to move them in one block (they are a logical unit like (say) tcp_wrappers). This would imply that we put them in contrib, but they break the contrib methodology in that its ok to edit them. Lemme think about this. M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH