A proposed drastic cleanup of the telnet build.

[Mark Murray]

Ruslan Ermilov writes:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 12:40:15PM +0100, Mark Murray wrote:
> [...]
> > > I'm not so sure about this.  If it would be possible to extract
> > > the crypto bits of the telnet sources to separate source files,
> > > and leave them under src/crypto/, I think that would be the best,
> > > but if it's too hard, well, the price could be paid.
> >=20
> > The point is that src/crypto is the part of the tree that will be
> > trimmed if there is a ban on crypto source. Part of the same point
> > is to avoid having duplicate sources, resulting in folks editing
> > only one and having code divergence between the two.
> >=20
> I understand this.  I just thought that it maybe possible
> to extract the crypto bits out of sources into separate
> =2Ec and .h files, so that we need to compile them together
> with non-crypto *.[ch] if we need crypto telnet.  I now
> see that this is nearly impossible; the crypto bits are
> scattered all around the sources.  But I have another
> important question here:
> 
> Are the telnet sources really considered crypto sources?
> Yes, they use crypto functionality if compiled with the
> corresponding options, but they just USE them, they
> don't PROVIDE them.  As such, should we treat them as
> restricted?  If yes, I'd like to (please) hear why are
> they treated as such?  If not, then the solution is
> obvious, keep them under src/*/(lib)telnet(d).

Hmm. Good point.

Moving them makes good sense. I'd prefer to move them 
in one block (they are a logical unit like (say) tcp_wrappers).
This would imply that we put them in contrib, but they break the
contrib methodology in that its ok to edit them.

Lemme think about this.

M
--
Mark Murray
iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH