Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:11:55 -0600 (CST) From: Guy Helmer <ghelmer@palisadesys.com> To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> Cc: <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/secure/usr.sbin/sshd Makefile Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0203191356520.12151-100000@magellan.palisadesys.com> In-Reply-To: <018101c1cf7f$86f601b0$d800a8c0@dwcjr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > > > Basically the portable would require less hacking to run on freebsd. > They > > > are Both from OpenBSD so there shouldn't be any disadvantage. > > > > The "portable" openssh contains extra code to support other non-BSD O/S's. > > To me, this implies the portable openssh contains code we don't need and > > it may have security implications. I see this as a disadvantage. > > You could also argue that it also contains extra code for other BSD O/S's > that OpenBSD does not need. OK. I was under the assumption that the portable openssh has lots of special cases for other UN*X-ish systems that don't really look like a *BSD. I can't complain if the portable openssh is a better fit to FreeBSD than OpenBSD's openssh. Guy 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.LNX.4.33.0203191356520.12151-100000>