Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:32:29 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/lukemftpd - Imported sources Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021112121539.38530I-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20021112171203.GB59816@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:15:53AM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> > I don't supposes there's any chance this addresses any of the serious
> > problems I identified on arch@ regarding the feature completeness and
> > documentation correctness of lukemftpd on FreeBSD? You seem not to be
> > responding to my follow-up e-mails asking what the status of the problems
> > is, and also seem not to have applied the documentation fixes submitted in
> > PRs. And you're clearly aware of at least on of the PR's, as you are the
> > owner of it.
>
> Robert what exactly do you want me to do?
I want you to either do the work necessary to make lukemftpd a reality in
the base tree, or remove it.
> Work with the vendor to fix things, or just pull everything off the
> vendor branch? Fine I'll do just that.
I'm not really interested in talking about the exact means by which you
make lukemftpd real. If it means cleaning it up with the vendor before
enabling it in the tree, fine. If it means taking it off the vendor
branch, also fine. But if it's not ready to be in the tree, and you have
no plans to address the problems, before the release, then it shouldn't be
in the tree.
> > I am also very concerned regarding your changes to the warning message
> > I added to inetd.conf to suggest that the BSD ftpd be an alternate to
> > lukemftpd.
>
> Here is the change:
> RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/etc/inetd.conf,v
> diff -u -u -0 -r1.59 -r1.60
> @@ -9,4 +9,4 @@
> -# WARNING: lukemftpd does not support PAM, MAC, per-class nologin files,
> +# WARNING: lukemftpd does not utilize PAM, MAC, per-class nologin files,
>
> -# or any login.conf resource limits or features; use it only if this is
> +# or any login.conf resource limits or features. Use this ftpd only if this is
>
> -# appropriate for your environment. If you require these features, use
> +# appropriate for your environment. If you require these features, use
>
> -# the regular FreeBSD ftpd below.
> +# the alternate FreeBSD ftpd below.
>
> I felt the wording was a little harsh to LukeMftpd and thus on LukeM. I
> felt for developer-relations reasons it should be reworded a little. I
> also thought shorter sentances was better.
I'm not making any attempt to disparage Luke or his work, and I'm
sensitive to the issue of appropriate phrasing. On the other hand, it's
not me who has introduced the daemon into the tree such that it requires
large warnings.
> I don't know why you are affended that Lukemftpd be called an alternate
> ftpd. We have lots of alternat ftpd's that come bundled with FreeBSD --
> wuftpd, proftpd, and ncftpd are two others.
You haven't called lukemftpd the alternate, you've called the FreeBSD ftpd
the alternate. You've also sorted it above the regular ftpd, and rejected
the notion that we update the documentation to reflect that fact that it's
not the ftpd. You've also ignored my requests to properly document the
deficiences of lukemftpd in its man pages, or even properly distinguish
the two: despite a submitted PR with all the necessary patches, the
lukemftpd man pages consistently refer to it as ftpd(8). Indeed, lots of
alternative FTP daemons do come with FreeBSD, and they're all in the ports
collection.
> > Lukemftpd *cannot* be the suggested FTPd.
>
> Why?? It works fine for many and I've seen many installations use it
> that find the "regular" ftpd *way* too feature limited for any ftp site
> on the naked Internet.
As discussed on arch@, authenticating daemons supporting login mechanisms
in FreeBSD all provide the following services:
(1) Support for PAM
(2) Support for login class resource limits
(3) Support for other login.conf features, such as per-user nologin files
(4) Support for OPIE
(5) Support for Kerberos (according to the README)
(6) Support for MAC
(7) Last, but not least importantly, documentation that refers to the
software by the correct name, rather than claiming its another piece
of software.
Right now, lukemftpd does none of these. As such, I've told you I believe
lukemftpd is feature incomplete. If you aren't willing to do the work to
make it integrated into the supported login and account management
infrastructure, then you shouldn't have committed it to the tree. All of
the other daemons integrated via contrib have these features. Even a
moderate number of the FreeBSD ports collection daemons have been adapted
to use these features on FreeBSD. You originally imported lukemftpd in
July of 2001, and other than enabling the build in Feburary and MFC'ing
it, you basically haven't touched it until this morning when you imported
a new version that apparently doesn't fix any of the problems I pointed
at.
Look: I'm not saying lukemftpd is a bad piece of software. I'm just
asking that you either integrate it properly with FreeBSD, or stop
claiming that it's feature-ready. The least possible integration you
could do is to properly document it as not supporting standard FreeBSD
daemon features and to properly differentiate it from the FreeBSD ftpd.
Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects
robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021112121539.38530I-100000>