From owner-freebsd-ports  Thu Mar 21 04:26:39 1996
Return-Path: owner-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id EAA22683
          for ports-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 04:26:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA22678
          Thu, 21 Mar 1996 04:26:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.6.9) id EAA06125; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 04:26:25 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 04:26:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199603211226.EAA06125@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: nate@sri.MT.net
CC: nate@sri.MT.net, ache@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org
In-reply-to: <199603210628.XAA10210@rocky.sri.MT.net> (message from Nate Williams on Wed, 20 Mar 1996 23:28:19 -0700)
Subject: Re: ssh-1.2.10; ok to run?
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 * 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