Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:15:33 -0500 From: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> To: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Changing rsync to use SSH rather than RSH by default Message-ID: <20010226211533.C767@ohm.physics.purdue.edu> In-Reply-To: <20010226160325.C2746@dragon.nuxi.com>; from TrimYourCc@NUXI.com on Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 04:03:25PM -0800 References: <200102260748.f1Q7me520862@freefall.freebsd.org> <86lmqt6ekc.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> <20010226002530.A21297@hub.freebsd.org> <86k86d6cge.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> <20010226160325.C2746@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--B2XwZuBUJ8PPSpsy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 04:03:25PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > Akinori MUSHA-san has asked if I would be willing to change the default > remote transport from RSH to SSH. How do people feel about that? Of > course we have SSH in the base system, but not all other OSs do. Why not? It's configurable, right? Telling people what transport mechanism on stdout would be good too (I'm not really familir with rsync, so I don't know about this). --=20 wca --B2XwZuBUJ8PPSpsy Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.3 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6mw3EF47idPgWcsURAtqvAJ0U45U7yA5sPJVcRnYLnkvsR/kOxACfRJzj 0WdklNQAkbJjr6yjFbi+TRQ= =5qLb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --B2XwZuBUJ8PPSpsy-- 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?20010226211533.C767>