On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 06:01:37AM +0100, Alex de Kruijff wrote:
> 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:

> > > 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.

This shouldn't be an impassable obstacle to making a tn3270 port --
there is precedent in the ports tree for having the port require
various parts of the system sources to be present in order to build.
See, for instance, the net/ng_netflow or the devel/linuxthreads ports.

Having a good, well maintained port available will go a long way
towards persuading most committers that the tn3270 application should
be restored to the base system.  Not all the way, but it will make a
difference.

        Cheers,

        Matthew

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.                       26 The Paddocks
                                                      Savill Way
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey         Marlow
Tel: +44 1628 476614                                  Bucks., SL7 1TH UK

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to