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).
It sounds like you want it removed from the ports collection. Given
that I have yet to see a real specific complaint against it (vague
comments about "it loads down the system" or "it's really buggy"
have not convinced me of much), I do not see why anyone would care
if it remains in the ports collection. There are certainly other
ports with bugs (hell, the base OS has bugs), and there are other
things which "load down a system" (funny, my system does not seem
to be "loaded down" by pident). What is it with this crusade to
completely eridicate ("phase out") pident?
Or am I missing something here?
---
Garance Alistair Drosehn = g...@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or dro...@rpi.edu
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
