Subject: Re: openbgpd 3.7
To: David Young <email@example.com>
From: Thomas E. Spanjaard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/23/2006 12:23:22
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
David Young wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:40:11PM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>>In message <20060123022359.GA2753@panix.com>, Thor Lancelot Simon writes:
>>>On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 07:36:46PM -0600, David Young wrote:
>>>>It would be a shame to squander openbgpd's *.mk-based build and
>>>>cross-buildability by putting it into pkgsrc instead of into base.
>>>I tend to agree. With syspkg so close to working, I think this is
>>>precisely the sort of thing that should go into /usr/src though quite
>>>possibly not into the traditional base.tgz tar file.
>>Should we have extras.tgz for such things? And perhaps move some other
>>very lightly used programs to it?
> How about router.tgz, for all of the lightly-used routing daemons?
I would prefer a router.tgz (or perhaps rather,routedaemons.tgz, or
routetools.tgz) above pkgsrc anyday. However, I have no idea if syspkgs
is anywhere near being finished; it's been years since work on it started.
Please CC me replies made to tech-userlevel@ exclusively, I'm not on
that list (yet? :)).
Thomas E. Spanjaard
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----