On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 05:52:04AM +0100, Alex de Kruijff wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:34:16PM -0600, Paul Seniura wrote: > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > Dear Paul, > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 04:43:48PM -0600, Paul Seniura wrote: > > > > 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 don't understand the word albeit in this line. English is not my > > > native language, sorry. > > > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=albeit > > :-) > > I did look at my offline dictionary, but this didn't make sence. I just > stated this, so that I reacted in a strange way it would be clear why > this was the case. > > > > Why do you want so much for all different groups to be alike? > > > > > > It seem to me that differences are natural when you have diffenent > > > groups. NetBSD and OpenBSD didn't have ports when FreeBSD started with > > > the use of ports. And this now is very succeful. We whould have missed > > > this if all we did was be like the others. > > > > Please look at the history of the BSDs. > > The tn3270 command was never in a 'port' to begin with. > > It was meant to be a companion to 'telnet' the command, the > > daemon, and its libraries. They are intertwined. > > What I mean by this is: that i think having it as a port is a good thing > recardless of what others do. > > > "The use of ports" has not been successful w/r/t tn3270 itself. > > It STILL will not compile correctly, even today. It was moved in > > order to allow 'world' to compile without problems. It was moved > > *instead* of being fixed. > > Then moving it back will not fix it either. That its not being fixed has > nothing to do with being a port or not. It has to do with to few people > who use the port. If it not fixed then that because no one with the > skill to do so is interesed in fixing it. > > > But the other BSDs have seemingly fixed it, and they left it > > inside /src/usr.bin/telnet where it belongs -- looking right now > > today at their CVS trees. (Yes I will do 'diff' between theirs > > and ours.) > > You could become the port maintainer. ;-) > > > > I personal feel that getting stuff out of the base system and in to the > > > port tree is a good thing if it is posible. This is more modulair and > > > thus is much more flexible. I see this as a good thing. > > > > > > Why should this ports be in the base system? Just because NetBSD or > > > OpenBSD do? FreeBSD is not OpenBSD or NetBSD > > > > I hope this is not too technical: > > All BSDs (except for this 'Free' one) presently have tn3270.c > > together with telnet.c for reasons that become apparent when > > studying how it works and how it is compiled etc. As they are > > presently written, all of telnet[d].c and tn3270.c must use the > > same macros and other source files from the same 'level' subdir. > > That means if something changes for the sake of 'telnet', it had > > better work with 'tn3270' also.
Yes, this is too technical. I would have to study the file, which i'm not going to. If you say that it couldn't posibly be a port, like perl5 can, then i will take your word for this. > > Putting tn3270 over into a port is a 'Free'BSD-only KLUDGE: look > > at its Makefile under /src/ports/net/tn3270. It was moved from > > where it belongs, instead of fixing it to compile and work > > properly per current specs -- and today it STILL will not compile > > correctly. Moving it only acted to permit the rest of the base > > system ('world') to compile without problems. Hence I call it a > > 'kludge' in its present 'Free'BSD-only form. > > But it is posible to have it as a port and working. It just needs some > one to put in the time to fix the port as it is. You wrongly put the > cause in it being a port now. > > > I was not 'here' back in 1999 when this decision was made. (See > > my reply to Kris, too, please; I show the 'commits' there.) In > > 1999, we were using OS/2 which had a fully functional basic > > PCom/3270 provided with the o.s. for 'free'. ;) Now I am trying > > to show TPTB how 'free' o.s.+software can be used, and ran into > > this stupid kludge almost 5 years too late. :( > > > > By your logic, let's move all of /src/contrib to the appropriate > > subdirs under /src/ports and not have a built-in telnet or any > > other such command! ;) > > At least consider it. > > Well perl use to be part of the base system and that was moved in > FreeBSD 5. Perl works because it was moved and there was efford put in > so that the port doesn't work. > > -- > Alex > > Articles based on solutions that I use: > http://www.kruijff.org/alex/index.php?dir=docs/FreeBSD/ -- Alex Articles based on solutions that I use: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/index.php?dir=docs/FreeBSD/ _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"