From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jul 16 22:34: 9 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from bazooka.unixfreak.org (bazooka.unixfreak.org [63.198.170.138]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A0D37B407; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:34:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dima@unixfreak.org) Received: from hornet.unixfreak.org (hornet [63.198.170.140]) by bazooka.unixfreak.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C723E2F; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:34:06 -0700 (PDT) To: Mike Heffner Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, obrien@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Importing lukemftpd In-Reply-To: ; from mheffner@novacoxmail.com on "Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:24:54 -0400 (EDT)" Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:34:06 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman Message-Id: <20010717053406.B6C723E2F@bazooka.unixfreak.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Mike Heffner writes: > a) our ftpd and NetBSD ftpd be merged as best as possible to keep features of > both, but try to follow NetBSD's ftpd development in our tree? > > b) we import NetBSD's ftpd AS IS and treat it like vender code with regular > imports, but break backwards compatibility? > > c) we not do anything at all and leave our ftpd as it is? > > > (a) of course is the best of both worlds, but it would require more work and > might make maintainership harder in the future. > > Please let me know what people think about this. I think (a) with a twist is the best option; the twist is that we should try to get as much of our local features into lukeftpd's distribution as possible. This doesn't help the "more work" problem at all, but solves the "maintainership" problem quite nicely. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message