Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 11:39:37 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> To: mark@grondar.za (Mark Murray) Cc: FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.Org (FreeBSD current) Subject: Re: DES, crypt and eBones Message-ID: <199506161839.LAA05460@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> In-Reply-To: <199506161832.UAA14459@grumble.grondar.za> from "Mark Murray" at Jun 16, 95 08:32:49 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > To summarise my proposals again (in no particular order): > > > > > > 1) The crypto code is a mess. I fail to see why it is broken into `secure' > > > and `ebones', so I would like to merge these. (With eBones remaining a > > > separate distribution). I would like the distributions to be called > > > `crypto' and `krb'. > > > > Sounds like renaming for the sake of renaming to me :-(. If eBones is > > going to remain seperate leave it called eBones!! > > Yuk. I expressed myself very badly here. At the moment, the source is split > in two, `secure' and `eBones'. I want to merge these together into `crypto' > (or whatever name - it does not matter to me) and have a more natural > directory structure under that - sort of like the way it is done for src/gnu > with usr.bin, usr.sbin, lib, include and so forth under that. The libraries > in particular are too general to belong to one distribution only. > > As part of the distribution, ie when the tarballs get rolled, there should > be a separating out of eBones, as not everybody will want Kerberised > binaries, even though it makes most sense to have their source with the > rest of the crypto stuff. At the moment we have the des.?? distribution, > the krb.?? distribution, the ssecure.?? distribution and the ssebones.?? > distribution. My proposal is that only the source gets merged. > > For the benefit of the -current users, I reckon we keep the MAKE_EBONES > option in /etc/make.conf (I want to fix that up a bit though). I disagree. eBones was to and does replace the 4.4BSD lite supplied Kerberos tree. I can use ``secure'' without eBones at all. If you bundle the two into one tree it is going to complicate things like sup targets, source tree management in src/Makefile, etc. Binary sets should match source sets, otherwise you are heading for trouble :-(. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Accurate Automation Company Custom computers for FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199506161839.LAA05460>