Subject: Re: krb5 integration proposal
To: Thor Lancelot Simon <>
From: Aidan Cully <>
List: current-users
Date: 06/10/1999 02:11:21
On Wed, Jun 09, 1999 at 03:28:11PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 1999 at 11:59:44AM -0400, Aidan Cully wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 09, 1999 at 11:55:54PM +1000, Simon Burge wrote:
> > > 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.

Yes, of course, and that was going to happen anyway.  But, apart from
adding k5 support, almost nothing is different between the two
libtelnets.  I'm not sure what you mean to suggest with, or how much
weight to give to the argument that krb5 contains the canonical telnet
sources..  The MIT version is almost completely unused when built from
the NetBSD tree.  It's only relevant when upgrading the dist/krb5 tree,
or when building straight out of dist/krb5 (which I believe can be a
useful thing for developers to be able to do, when testing