On Fri, 2014-07-11 at 03:03 -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > If lynx was removed from base, and only available in ports... how many of > you would even know of it's existance and use it?
Not only would I know of its existence and go install it to use, I would wonder out loud why the hell it's not in base. Furthermore, if it had been intentionally crippled to exclude rare but definitely used protocols like gopher that are part of "stock" Lynx as released by the current maintainers, I would wonder what kind of whacked out hallucinogenics someone had to have been on to do such a thing. (It's something I'd expect from Firefox developers, but definitely not from OpenBSD maintaners.) If there's a security hole related to gopher or bibp, let's fix it, let's not up and drop support for those protocols because of it. People do use these protocols even in 2014. If it's code bloat, I'd like to know just how much code we're talking about. Unless we're going to try to put Lynx on install media (and I am definitely not suggesting that we do), 1.7 megabytes really isn't all that big (it's actually smaller than ftp). If you have gamesXX.tgz installed and never play them you have no business complaining about bloat on a binary of that size. Looking back over this patch, I see no reason to break telnet support since we still ship a telnet client. (In case anyone brings this up, I see no reason to remove telnet from base either.) Also, there's no good reason I can think of to break rlogin and tn3270 support for the people who have those installed and need to use it. I retract any support I may have indicated. Now, should the upstream remove this support for whatever reason, that's an entirely different can of worms. But if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And from here it looks like it ain't broke. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com>
