Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:53:03 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.osd.bsdi.com> To: asami@freebsd.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.osd.bsdi.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, kris@freebsd.org, archie@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Export controlled ports Message-ID: <22321.963381183@localhost> In-Reply-To: Your message of "11 Jul 2000 22:41:57 PDT." <vqcpuojsy56.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> * From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.osd.bsdi.com> > > * You know, it might be cool if we could still preserve, somehow, the > * fact that this is in the crypto category. Not make it a restriction, > * just preserve it as a classification in case anybody inside Vietnam or > * China or someplace with their _own_ problematic and self-defeating set > * of laws on cryptography import or export needs to know which ports are > * which. What do you think? > > Well, they are all marked with "### crypto", I can make that a rule > instead of just an example. > > Beyond that, I'm not really excited about adding Yet Another Knob > (YAK) to a collection that already has too many special cases that I'm > working hard to eliminate. What about a general categorization knob then, of which crypto should be only one of many possible values? I've long thought that a "property list / atom" scheme for aggregating more ports data into a smaller number of variable (property) names would be the way to go with "future ports", and in a few places we sort of do this now but not nearly as much as we could. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?22321.963381183>