Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:20:08 +0400 From: Roman Bogorodskiy <novel@FreeBSD.org> To: "Wojciech A. Koszek" <wkoszek@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: We don't really need two FTP daemons Message-ID: <20070510132008.GA9145@underworld.novel.ru> In-Reply-To: <20070510134740.GA39021@FreeBSD.czest.pl> References: <20070510134740.GA39021@FreeBSD.czest.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--azLHFNyN32YCQGCU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wojciech A. Koszek wrote: > Hello, >=20 > There is a lot of confusion caused by the fact of having two instances > of the FTP daemon present in our source tree. >=20 > First one is src/libexed/ftpd/... >=20 > Second one lies in src/contrib/lukemftpd/... >=20 > We don't need to have both of them, unless one has much more powerful > functionality over the second. However, in my opinion the major purpose > of having FTP daemon in the base is possibility of fast configuration > with minimal cost, just to "get it up and running". >=20 > I think first server fullfills this requirement. >=20 > If you're FreeBSD user and administrator, there are several advantages > of having only one FTP server. >=20 > I think first daemon was security reviewed by the previous FreeBSD > security officer, which is the biggest plus. lukemftpd(8) had some well > known problems present in the past. >=20 > The first is updated and it's functionality is enhanced to meet > standards (see latest changes from Yar Tichy). >=20 > Cost of maintainance of one server is lower. >=20 > It saves a lot of confusion for users -- we have both daemons present in > a inetd.conf(8) file, without mentioning, whether a first is more > powerfull than the second one. >=20 > Some discussions with FreeBSD developers made me feel that we may really > want to sort a "double FTP daemon" issue out. >=20 > Could we decide if we really want to support lukemftpd(8) ? Moreover, there's a lot of confusing in docs regarding the configuration files, since both ftpd use some common config files with different semantics. Anyway, this issue has been discussed several times already, and nothing changed... Roman Bogorodskiy --azLHFNyN32YCQGCU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iQCVAwUBRkMcCIB0WzgdqspGAQJ/xAQAgUPXdwIALNGqAnOVvaHLkQAvdYlaUS6x g1PpRl3Ipirc41AdRiTS4hy87pLdREvbrhbvPDePzgKQwxwcmGE5SJF5rejEkEPS sjuvx6avygkezR3xr/ovENyh6D3ZsgAQLrMXe83wfpbb3JAvtvyC5xnbatKWpRBx gQu+GHgKDyM= =i4Zp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --azLHFNyN32YCQGCU--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070510132008.GA9145>