On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 11:47 PM -0400 7/13/99, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> > We don't _need_ pidentd anymore. It will load down a system more
> > than the inetd's implementation of ident will. Therefore, pidentd
> > should be phased out. Other than that, pidentd should be using
> > http://www.FreeBSD.org/~green/freebsd4.c and not linking with
> > libkvm.
>
> I am not sure I understand what you are saying. pident is currently
> a port, under 'security'. I can understand the idea that maybe it
> should be under 'net' instead (in fact, that's where I first looked
> for it when I went to install it on my machine).
I agree that it shouldn't be under security, but if we move it now
there will be a lot of complaining from the people who already know where
it is. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but there you have it.
As for the rest of it, you've wandered into the middle of a fairly
silly argument. One camp says, "We don't need to have a built-in FreeBSD
version of ident because we have a port of it available to those who need
it." The other camp seems to be saying get rid of the port, but what they
are really saying is that, "The current ident options all suck, so it
would be nice to have a freebsd version that we know will work, and once
we have that then people won't need the port, but they can install it if
they want to."
Frankly I don't see why we're still discussing this, but then
again, I do.
Hope this helps,
Doug
--
On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only
nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter
what it does.
-- Will Rogers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
