Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:56:39 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.ORG>, Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: a BSD identd Message-ID: <v04011700b3b26fb1352e@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9907132346270.96614-100000@janus.syracuse.net> References: <49928.931911388@axl.noc.iafrica.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:47 PM -0400 7/13/99, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > We don't _need_ pidentd anymore. It will load down a system more > than the inetd's implementation of ident will. Therefore, pidentd > should be phased out. Other than that, pidentd should be using > http://www.FreeBSD.org/~green/freebsd4.c and not linking with > libkvm. I am not sure I understand what you are saying. pident is currently a port, under 'security'. I can understand the idea that maybe it should be under 'net' instead (in fact, that's where I first looked for it when I went to install it on my machine). It sounds like you want it removed from the ports collection. Given that I have yet to see a real specific complaint against it (vague comments about "it loads down the system" or "it's really buggy" have not convinced me of much), I do not see why anyone would care if it remains in the ports collection. There are certainly other ports with bugs (hell, the base OS has bugs), and there are other things which "load down a system" (funny, my system does not seem to be "loaded down" by pident). What is it with this crusade to completely eridicate ("phase out") pident? Or am I missing something here? --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or drosih@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v04011700b3b26fb1352e>