Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:22:15 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: why not CVS server support ? Message-ID: <199801261722.KAA01440@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <19980126083622.14648@klemm.gtn.com> References: <19980125175618.10691@klemm.gtn.com> <19980125183247.09801@follo.net> <199801251932.MAA28784@mt.sri.com> <19980125204353.52228@klemm.gtn.com> <199801252036.NAA29040@mt.sri.com> <19980126083622.14648@klemm.gtn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > > > Why don't we support cvs server in the base OS ? > > > > > > Our /usr/src/contrib/cvs sources looked a bit stripped down. > > > Somewhere (I think in the OpenBSD sources) I saw a sever subdir, > > > > OpenBSD has made many changes to their copy of CVS (in particular the > > anonCVS stuff), so that may be what you are seeing. > > That's it... > > > The OpenBSD CVS sources aren't stock (or at least weren't last time I > > looked at them.) > > Since they claim to be a very secure OS, it may be worth looking > at their changes. Their changes were for anonCVS support, which is not acceptable to the CVS maintainers because the checked out bits aren't guaranteed to be consistant among themselves. (We have a guarantee that each directory is consistant within itself, but using anonCVS there is no such guarantee, and this change is unacceptable to the CVS folks.) I doubt that the OpenBSD bits are any more secure than the cyclic bits in the 'normal' operating mode. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199801261722.KAA01440>