Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 19:58:20 +0100 From: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely5.cicely.de> To: Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> Cc: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Summary of List of things to move from main tree to ports Message-ID: <20010217195820.A37125@cicely5.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <20010217173019.A431@ringworld.oblivion.bg>; from roam@orbitel.bg on Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 05:30:19PM %2B0200 References: <200102170722.f1H7MHm20405@earth.backplane.com> <20010217173019.A431@ringworld.oblivion.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 05:30:19PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:22:17PM -0800, Matt Dillon wrote: > > Ok, here's my summary. Yah yah, I inject my own opinions. Too bad. > > This will be my last posting on the topic. > > > > > > Least Controversial: > > > > Medium Controversial: > > > > UUCP (uucp, uucpd) > > > [snip] > > > > There are fewer people screaming for UUCP to stay in the base tree > > then, say, people screaming for rlogind to stay in the base tree. > > Despite Terry's waxing poetic about UUCP's dialup capabilities, > > every soul I know (except maybe Terry) who has ever used UUCP in the > > past no longer does (and I should know: I wrote AmigaUUCP!). > > However, if those people are going to make a big deal about it, > > I suppose we can take the intermediate step of having a BUILD_UUCP > > make.conf (opt-in) option for the next few years. > > Just a minor comment-with-a-question. What is UUCP used for - mainly mail? > If so, then here's a datapoint - about two years ago I took part in > converting an existing UUCP mail transfer config to one using fetchmail. > Quite simple - invoke fetchmail -d from the PPP link-up script, kill it > in the link-down script in such a way that it sends a QUIT to avoid > message duplicates. There were a couple of other issues too, but in > the end, it all started working, and it's been working flawlessly for > the past two years. > > When I compared a five-line .fetchmailrc to the UUCP configuration > (that I, admittedly, did not quite understand, since I had had no part > in setting it up), I was, like.. well, you can imagine :) You have to use special additions so that fetchmail get get at the envelope recepient. UUCP is still a cool and fazcination thing. UUCP can handle remote command execution of offline systems independend of the existence of an IP configuration. We have customers fetching news and mail via direct UUCP (without IP). I can easily queue thing like pintjobs on an mobile system just to be automaticaly tranfered and executed once I have the ability. That said - UUCP is far away from beeing part of todays Unix philosophie and a globaly writeable directory is bad thing for several reasons. I want to be able to use it but it hasn't to be as part of the base system. It needs to be configured before any sensefull use of it and installing a package/port is not a big thing. My vote: Make a port out of uucp and keep r*-services. -- B.Walter COSMO-Project http://www.cosmo-project.de ticso@cicely.de Usergroup info@cosmo-project.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010217195820.A37125>