From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Jul 11 6:50: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7D1937B400; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:49:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from absinthe.condo.chico.ca.us (adsl-64-169-154-205.dsl.chic01.pacbell.net [64.169.154.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4CA143E54; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:49:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fred@absinthe2.dyndns.org) Received: from absinthe2.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by absinthe.condo.chico.ca.us (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g6BDnwE4075014; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:49:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fred@absinthe2.dyndns.org) Received: (from fred@localhost) by absinthe2.dyndns.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g6BDnw4j075013; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:49:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fred) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:49:57 -0700 From: Fred Condo To: "Andrew P. Lentvorski" Cc: Mike Jakubik , Stable , dinoex@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sshd vs ports sshd Message-ID: <20020711134957.GC72613@absinthe.condo.chico.ca.us> References: <20020710143306.GC70071@absinthe.condo.chico.ca.us> <20020711012016.X71272-100000@mail.allcaps.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020711012016.X71272-100000@mail.allcaps.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 01:50:32AM -0700, Andrew P. Lentvorski wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Fred Condo wrote: > > > I strenuously disagree. Should inetd be a port? Sendmail? What about > > syslogd or named? Although not all should be on by default, they are > > certainly essential to enough users that they should be part of the > > default installation. > > Well, since you brought it up, the idea should certainly be open to > discussion ;) Yes, but perhaps no more on -stable. There is no way the arguably reasonable changes you propose below will go into stable, so this discussion is veering off-topic, and I would hate to be the guy responsible for reducing s/n here. > > I can make the case for removing any subsystem which is primarily > maintained by someone other than the FreeBSD team from the "base" system > (ie. buildworld/installworld). This would include named/bind (which most > people don't use), sendmail (lots of people use other mailers), OpenSSH > (security fixes propagate more often than OS releases), Perl (way too big > and unstable), etc. > > The latest OpenSSH fire drill certainly helps make the point. If OpenSSH > wasn't a part of the base buildworld, the dev team wouldn't have to worry > about it right now. It would be completely a ports issue. > > Please note that you can make packages part of a default install even if > it's not going to be part of the main buildworld. See the rather long > flamefest^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussion about removing Perl from the base > distribution. Very few people would argue that Perl shouldn't be part of > a "default" install. However, keeping it as part of a > buildworld/installworld base just becomes very unwieldy. The compromise > is to install it by default as a package. Yes, let us not start a "discussion" like the one about Perl here. This discussion should move to another list. I don't think this change should (or will) happen on RELENG_4, so it is moot to post here about it, and I will post no more in this thread forever :) -- Fred Condo - fred@condo.chico.ca.us To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message