Erase the source file open; specify a tempfile name option

[mouring at etoh.eviladmin.org]

On Sat, 19 May 2001, Wayne Davison wrote:

> On Sat, 19 May 2001, Markus Friedl wrote:
> > i'm not sure about this. should we really modify scp?
> > i'd prefer to have a minimal diff between scp.c and rcp.c
>
> I need help understanding this.  Adding useful options to a utility
> certainly makes it more complex, but it also makes it more useful.
> While you certainly want to make it easy to switch from rcp to scp, I
> don't see why having more functionality than rcp available to use is a
> bad thing.
>

This issue has come up before.  The heart of the issue is that we should
keep the source difference as managable as we can between rcp and scp.  So
if any bugs are found in rcp they can be applied to scp easily.  And your
currently patch rewrites a large chunk of the rcp code.

If there is a cleaner way to do it while preserving the rcp code.  It may
be more accepted.

- Ben