Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 04:26:25 -0800 (PST) From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: nate@sri.MT.net Cc: nate@sri.MT.net, ache@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ssh-1.2.10; ok to run? Message-ID: <199603211226.EAA06125@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <199603210628.XAA10210@rocky.sri.MT.net> (message from Nate Williams on Wed, 20 Mar 1996 23:28:19 -0700)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Cc: ache@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org I assume you just added "ports" to the CC: list, since I haven't seen any of the mails quoted.... * > Hmm, I just set my USA_RESIDENT == YES after the port whines at me, it * > downloads the sources and then exists. All attempts to create the * > package fail since it doesn't do anything. Does anyone know how to The package creation is disabled by default since this is not exportable. You can try "make FORCE_PACKAGE=yes package" if you really want to create the package. * However, this port is useless to me for several reasons: * 1) It requires a lot of useless ports, such as TK, Perl5, and Wish. * None of these are necessary, and the configure scripts already knows * they aren't necessary. If I remember right Peter and I argued with * Andrey about this very thing. I'm trying to install this on my * router box, and it has (and NEEDS) none of the above tools. It's got * a smallish disk already, I don't need alot of bloat for security * tools that DON'T NEED all of the extra junk just to get a working * ssh/sshd binary. This I can't comment on, it's up to the maintainer. If you can convince me enough I might assert my "authoritative power" (:) but I generally try to avoid sticking my head into something I don't understand (like security). * 2) This port only works under -current. That may be fine and good, but * the next 'official' release of FreeBSD on CD is going to be -stable, * which means that this port won't build on it. Again, my firewall box * is running -stable on a small disk, but even if it had a *huge* disk * I'd have to be running -current to get this port to compile. I'm sorry about that, but we've been over this before. The ports collection always has, and continue to, support -current only. That the previous CD had compiled packages for that version is nothing short of a miracle, I've been holding back several changes that would make it incompatible with -stable until the release. This is no longer possible with the increasing divergence between -current and -stable, we simply don't have the resources (both man hours and machines) to maintain two trees. After 2.1R was out, I argued against the continued -stable/-current split, but the kernel hackers were too uncomfortable with the idea of having a release based on -current (and you have to respect that). Thus, the next release will ship with the old ports tree and packages. * So, what is it going to take for me to get ssh working under FreeBSD * short of building it by hand like I have to do on the Suns? It seems * like a waste of my time to do this when we have this *really* nice ports * system in place. (Although I will admit, I don't have to go looking for * the distributions since their locations are in the Makefiles. :) Just comment out the *_DEPENDS you don't want in the ssh Makefile, I've heard it will complain but build it anyway. Or if you are sure you have the things you really need (I think only libz qualifies), do a "make NO_DEPENDS=yes". * Sorry to vent my spleen here, but the current ssh port seems * counter-productive to me. Sorry, the ports scheme (by its very definition) is not very efficient in filling everyone's need. It tries to make the majority happy, and has to assume certain things (like, people would have perl5 and tk4 installed by now).... Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603211226.EAA06125>