From owner-freebsd-stable Tue May 30 8:37: 1 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from correo.tamnet.com.mx (tamnet.com.mx [200.34.205.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA99A37B561 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 08:36:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from adepoo@tamnet.com.mx) Received: from correo.tamnet.com.mx (tamnet.com.mx [200.34.205.20]) by correo.tamnet.com.mx (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA19743; Tue, 30 May 2000 10:36:46 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:36:46 -0500 (CDT) From: Alberto de Poo To: Matt Heckaman Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 4.0-stable, OpenSSH v1 & v2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 29 May 2000, Matt Heckaman wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, 29 May 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote: > [...] > : > Is it reasonable to assume that OpenSSH v2 will (should) > : > disappear from ports when/if it goes to the main source tree? > : > : Once we stop supporting FreeBSD 3.x in ports.. > > To be honest, do we WANT to stop supporting it in the ports? I would argue > that this is a case similar to BIND. It takes much longer for a new > version to get merged into -STABLE than it does to get into the ports. I > use BIND as an example here, but the same would apply for OpenSSL. What I > would love to see is ports installing in the same location as the base > program if on an OS with it in the base. > In the latest tar for ipfilter, now it changes the files that came with -STABLE and put the binaries in the same location as STABLE does, so you don't end with 2 binaries in 2 diferent locations. Of course this is not a port but a new version that can be installed directly. Saludos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message