Hi y'all,

I've been digging into the port net/tn3270 since I volunteered to
maintain it ;) .

I have some questions, now, after I did some searches on Google.com
to try locating the 'official' Berkeley stuff (our src trees have it
branded on just about everything y'know ;) .

I'm wondering what historical moves were done to the src that builds
FreeBSD's telnet command and telnetd daemon, because now they do not
match other BSDs (AFAICS).  This is the crux of my perplextion.

It seems NetBSD and OpenBSD continue to include
telnet+telnetd+tn3270 together under one subdir as part of
/src/usr.bin -- but FreeBSD moved only the telnet[d] pieces
to /src/contrib/telnet and eliminated the tn3270 pieces completely.

(I haven't dug too deep yet in the libtelnet tree, which is one
piece that FreeBSD does retain as other BSDs have it. 
But for right now let's stick to the command & daemon parts.)

I'm seriously debating in my head whether FreeBSD should add back
the tn3270 pieces to /src/contrib/telnet so that we can match the
other BSDs albeit in the 'contrib' subtree.

I know NetBSD has sheared away from FreeBSD, but they have kept
their telnet subtree updated and along the lines of original BSD. 
Same with OpenBSD, even tho the files on their mirrors look even
'newer' than NetBSD's.

There was a humongous commit some months ago, I believe to NetBSD's
srcs, to get rid of the 'Berkeley' branding and several lines of
Berkeley's licensing (legal) wording.  That huge commit touched
most of src _everywhere_.  That commit's Log entry was specifically
mentioning Berkeley's disbanding of the agreements back in 1999. 
Not even the 'lint' #ifdef is in there anymore for NetBSD (but
OpenBSD has retained them).

I'll stop right here before asking anything else, wanting to see if
anyone here at FreeBSD can explain what has happened and why 'we' are
so different than 'them'.  ;)

Thank you very much.

  --  Paul Seniura
      System Specialist
      State of Okla. D.O.T.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to