Subject: Re: krb5 integration proposal
To: Aidan Cully <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <email@example.com>
Date: 06/09/1999 15:28:11
On Wed, Jun 09, 1999 at 11:59:44AM -0400, Aidan Cully wrote:
> [...trimmed tech-net...]
> On Wed, Jun 09, 1999 at 11:55:54PM +1000, Simon Burge wrote:
> > Eek, so you want the misc.c from the non-domestic telnet and the
> > encrypt.[ch] from the domestic one, where there's a misc.c in domestic
> > and a encrypt.[ch] in the non-domestic tree?
> You got it.
> > Is there a functional difference between the source that's common to
> > both the domestic and non-domestic distributions - might it be just as
> > easy to "cvs delete" the domestic one in this case if you don't want to
> > use it?
> Almost[*], but.. I don't want to lose any information. Currently, my
> domestic/krb5 tree is very nearly usable in its own right as a kerberos5
> distribution, and I hope it will be completely usable as such at some
> point. cvs deleting files loses that.
I think this is ill-conceived. The telnet sources distributed with MIT
krb5 *are the canonical telnet sources that we track in NetBSD*. There is
just no reason at all to have two copies in the tree, an "MIT" version
and "our" version. Our version should be updated with whatever changes MIT
made since we last synced up.