re: I have some questions about telnet/telnetd/libtelnet/tn3270 and why FreeBSD is different than other BSDs in this regard
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. I understand ;) . It is a way to short-cut a lot of words. In my case, it means: The other BSDs still have many things that we keep in /src/contrib that should be in /src/usr.bin -- not just tn3270 was moved. But I'll follow the Party Line at least this far. ;) OT NetBSD has recently severed ties to FreeBSD, and I'm wondering if it's partly due to FreeBSD becoming too different. Just thinking out loud. ;) 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 is part of the problem as it exists right now. Not the _entire_ problem, _part_ of the problem. When the telnet code is changed, no one will see that it causes problems with tn3270, and no one fixes it. So it compounds the problems. But the #1 problem right now is it being written in very old and dated C language. No one has touched it for 'that' long. 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. Someone could've patched tn3270.c in its proper place with compiler statements #ifdef false/#endif surrounding the entire module very easily, thus it becomes a 'good' compile and will prevent contaminating 'world' until it is fixed. ;) When someone sees that the command has either disappeared or Does Nothing, then the related PR could be cited. 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. ;-) sigh I mentioned it in the very first message of this thread. Can you see who the maintainer is listed in the Makefile for net/tn3270? (the patch for it came out a couple months ago already) I _am_ the (new) maintainer! But I do not have nor do I want 'committer' status. Whenever I get things working right, I'll open a PR and do it that way. ;) I hope it makes sense now, why I am complaining about how tn3270 was treated during all these years? Esp. when other BSDs are seemingly not having our problems. 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.
re: I have some questions about telnet/telnetd/libtelnet/tn3270 and why FreeBSD is different than other BSDs in this regard
Hello, 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. I see how those check for certain files. But tn3270's Makefile recursively copies a lot under /src/contrib/telnet/ to its work dir. I haven't seen many ports do that sort of thing. ;) If there are routines that belong in library functions such, shared or not, then it could entail modifying the telnet stack itself -- DTRT to follow standards y'know. 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. I'm likely to 'borrow' tn3270 sources from another BSD since they don't seem to be having our problems. And for that to follow, we'd need to put it back where it belongs (under /src/contrib for us, while other BSDs haven't moved it from /src/usr.bin). I'd only be doing that on this PC locally, of course (I don't have nor want 'committer' status for lots of reasons ;) . Once it all works, I'll open a PR and have others look at the patches. Oh this will take quite a while. This PC may take all week or longer just to get caught up on all the commits from last Friday onward. ;) Matthew -- thx, Paul Seniura. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I have some questions about telnet/telnetd/libtelnet/tn3270 and why FreeBSD is different than other BSDs in this regard
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
:-)
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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! ;)
-- thx, Paul Seniura
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I have some questions about telnet/telnetd/libtelnet/tn3270 and why FreeBSD is different than other BSDs in this regard
Hi Kris, On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 04:43:48PM -0600, Paul Seniura wrote: 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. Read the commit logs and mailing list archives - it's all discussed there. Kris I'm sorry, I am using Rambler to find any hits on 'tn3270' and see nothing useful. How many years do I need to go back? Let me show you what I found, please. Maybe you can help me find the discussion that isn't here in my notes. CVSweb still shows 'tn3270.c' being under the Attic with No Useful Comments as to why it was put there. Then I went to the CVSweb under /src/usr.bin/telnet to find the following Humorous But Terribly Non-Useful Comment: ¥ Revision 1.4, Tue Aug 31 08:53:58 1999 UTC (4 years, 6 months ago) by markm ¥ Branch: MAIN ¥ CVS Tags: HEAD ¥ Changes since 1.3: +0 -0 lines ¥ FILE REMOVED ¥ ¥ FreeBSD District court of Appeals - TN3270 vs Ports ¥ ¥ Judge: TN3270, you are charged with being superfluous to ¥ requirement, and have been found guilty. ¥ Defence, do you have any final words? ¥ Defence lawyer: Yes,.. ¥ *!BLAM!* ¥ Judge: Contempt of court!! That blood is disgusting! Sergeant? ¥ Sergeant: Sah!? ¥ Judge: Get that mess out of here. ¥ Sergeant: Sah!! ¥ Judge: Anyone else have anything else to say? ¥ ... ¥ Judge: Executioner! ¥ Executioner:My lord? ¥ Judge: Carry out the sentence, forthwith! ¥ Executioner:As my lord wishes... ¥ *!BLAM!* *!BLAM!* *!BLAM!* ¥ Judge: Any more matters for the court today? A reply to that very non-useful comment: ¥ From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¥ Date: 02/09/1999 ¥ Mark Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ¥Removed files: ¥ [...] ¥Log: ¥ [...] ¥ ¥ So, you just added 650 bytes of moderately funny but totally useless ¥ text to about a hundred files in the repo, thus contributing 65 kB to ¥ repo bloat and lengthening an average user's cvsup session by 20 ¥ seconds. ¥ ¥ DES ...And still no useful comment to this day. I see the thread leading up to markm's action: ¥ Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/tn3270/sys_curses termout.c ¥ From: Mark Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¥ Date: 30/08/1999 ¥ peter 1999/08/30 01:23:34 PDT ¥ ¥Modified files: ¥ usr.bin/tn3270/sys_curses termout.c ¥Log: ¥Make this compile.. (Why do we have tn3270 in the tree anyway?) ¥ ¥ I've had a license to punt this to ports for _years_. I'll do this tonight. ¥ ¥ M and ¥ Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/tn3270/sys_curses termout.c ¥ From: Mark Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¥ Date: 30/08/1999 ¥ Make this compile.. (Why do we have tn3270 in the tree anyway?) ¥ ¥ Because it was in 4.4. I've been wanting to get rid of it for three ¥ or four years now ¥ ¥ It will be gone in 6 hours! ¥ ¥ M and finally ¥ cvs commit: CVSROOT modules ¥ From: Mark Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¥ Date: 31/08/1999 ¥ markm 1999/08/30 13:21:32 PDT ¥ ¥ Modified files: ¥ .modules ¥ Log: ¥ port_tn3270 -- ports/net/tn3270 ¥ ¥ Revision ChangesPath ¥ 1.325 +2 -1 CVSROOT/modules Afterwards: ¥ cvs commit: ports/net/tn3270 - Imported sources ¥ From: Mark Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¥ Date: 31/08/1999 ¥ markm 1999/08/30 13:27:51 PDT ¥ ¥ ports/net/tn3270 - Imported sources ¥ Update of /home/ncvs/ports/net/tn3270 ¥ In directory freefall.freebsd.org:/d/users/markm/import/tn3270 ¥ ¥ Log Message: ¥ This is FreeBSD's tn3270, yanked from src/usr.bin, and lightly hacked ¥ with the addition of relevant parts of src/usr.bin/telnet/* ¥ ¥ Once the dateline hase crossed the repository, the original will ¥ be led outside, given a perfunctory trial, and shot. ¥ ¥ Status: ¥ ¥ Vendor Tag: BSD_4_4 ¥ Release Tags: bsd_4_4 ¥ ¥ N ports/net/tn3270/Makefile ¥ N ports/net/tn3270/files/md5 ¥ N ports/net/tn3270/patches/patch-aa ¥ N ports/net/tn3270/pkg/COMMENT ¥ N ports/net/tn3270/pkg/DESCR ¥ N ports/net/tn3270/pkg/PLIST ¥ ¥ No conflicts created by this import Rambler produced hits logged several years before; I found hits on 'imports' of this subtree back in 1996, other hits in 1995. But I see no discussion concerning this move during those years, at all. About a year after tn3270 was moved, people began to experience problems with it. PR 21264 seems to be the first one -- and it is STILL OPEN, because the prebuilt binaries package on the servers is horribly out of date -- and THAT is because tn3270 under ports will not compile properly for several reasons (not entirely related to the move). Prior discussions I see that Rambler found tn3270 mentioned at all: * an old and very long thread on ports-current/packages-current being
Re: I have some questions about telnet/telnetd/libtelnet/tn3270 and why FreeBSD is different than other BSDs in this regard
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:34:24PM -0600, Paul Seniura wrote: Hi Kris, On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 04:43:48PM -0600, Paul Seniura wrote: 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. Read the commit logs and mailing list archives - it's all discussed there. Kris I'm sorry, I am using Rambler to find any hits on 'tn3270' and see nothing useful. How many years do I need to go back? Let me show you what I found, please. Maybe you can help me find the discussion that isn't here in my notes. Sorry, I don't have time to help with your research. I recommend you either 1) Install the port, and move on with your life, or 2) If this is simply unacceptable to you, then install a different Operating System which conforms to your opinion of how the world should work. Kris pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: I have some questions about telnet/telnetd/libtelnet/tn3270 and why FreeBSD is different than other BSDs in this regard
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. 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. 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 -- 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]
Re: I have some questions about telnet/telnetd/libtelnet/tn3270 and why FreeBSD is different than other BSDs in this regard
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 04:43:48PM -0600, Paul Seniura wrote: 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. Read the commit logs and mailing list archives - it's all discussed there. Kris pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
