Subject: Re: UUCP removal from OpenBSD
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Feico Dillema <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/30/2001 15:43:11
On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 08:09:58AM -0500, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 01:44:22PM +0200, Tomasz Luchowski wrote:
> > > Does anyone use uucp these days? I have never used it, and I like
> > > the idea of removing obsolete (at least from my point of view) software.
> > Yes, me. Couple of other NetBSD developers, last this question was raised,
> > and handful other people at least I know.
> > If, one day, the base system is pkg-ed in a fine-grained way, factoring
> > taylor-uucp out would look acceptable to me.
> I agree. "Obsolete", to me, means non-working and unmaintable, whereas
> uucp is stable, working, and requires minimal ongoing maintenance.
> As other BSD's drop it, that's even more of a reason to keep it.
Whether it is obsolete or not, is not the question here. Fetchmail is
not obsolete either, nor is gnome or whatever. However, that's no
reason to have those in the NetBSD base system. Question is whether a
large enough fraction of newly installed NetBSD systems actually
have any use for it ever, and how high the price of its absence
is for those that do need it, to warrant its appearance on
*all* installed systems.
On a related note, would it be `A Good Thing' to have certain binaries
that need setuid, have their setuid bit stripped by default, and then
set it only after configuration (like UUCP=YES in /etc/rc.conf etc)?