>I'd say it don't do it! Isn't NetBSD supposed to be "highly portable"?
>Why can't this extend to commands/daemons? Personally I feel removing
>this stuff only marginally improves readiblity.  The code is somewhat
>unreadable regardless IMHO.

	the question is the meaning of "portability".

	are we targetting to make NetBSD operating system as a whole to be
	easily portable to new CPU architecture?  the answer is yes.  it is
	stated in www.netbsd.org webpage.

	are we targetting to make applications in usr.bin to be portable across
	multiple platforms? (this is what you meant)  if so, every usr.bin/foo
	has to have GNU configure script.  therefore, i guess this is not the
	"portability" netbsd is targetting.

	for instance, usr.bin/ftp is NetBSD-only, and we have separate
	distribution "lukemftp" which adds portability.  can't we take the same
	direction if we need to make telnet/telnetd portable? (i'm not sure if
	i'd volunteer)

>I think the only vendor that has even come close to "keeping up"
>with telnetd is Cray (probably since Cray contributed its changes
>back to Berkeley and they were incorporated into the 4.4 sources).

	could you expand on what you meant by "keeping up"?

itojun