At 10:31 PM -0800 2/19/00, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > if 4.0 is delayed, I want it delayed for things which are actually busted,
> > and not to move features from the ports collection to the base system.
>
>No-one's talking about delaying 4.0.
Not directly, but all the work trying to figure this out is work
that could be going elsewhere in the 4.0 release. And if we did
happen to get to the point where everything else WAS worked out,
but this was not, then what would you want to happen?
> > I think everyone agrees that having a cryptography toolkit in the
> > base system would be great, but we don't have to have it for *this*
> > release, and there are no "cool things" for *this* release which
> > depend on some cryptography toolkit being part of the base system.
>
>Except it's not just this release, it's "for the life of the 4.x branch"
>given the rules of what should get put into -stable. I really don't want
>to have to wait another year or more for 5.0-RELEASE before we can start
>making use of crypto in the recommended version of FreeBSD.
Hmm. Well, I agree that I would not want to wait quite that long.
If it absolutely must be in the base system for 4.0 for us to have
it there in 4.x, then I guess I'd put the RSA-less (basically useless)
version in the base system now, and then "update" that come september.
Either that, or make the exception for this and say it will be in
4.1 even though it didn't make it for 4.0.
I realize none of these are particularly attractive strategies, of
course... I am agreeable to any strategy which helps get us to the
goal of a cryptography kit in the base system, as long as it doesn't
cause too much of a delay, and it won't cause any legal problems for
people distributing freebsd.
---
Garance Alistair Drosehn = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
