From owner-cvs-all Tue Mar 19 11:52:24 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from leviathan.inethouston.net (leviathan.inethouston.net [66.64.12.249]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31BF037B433; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:51:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from dwcjr (dwcjr [192.168.0.216]) by leviathan.inethouston.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 12423319AFA; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:52:00 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <018101c1cf7f$86f601b0$d800a8c0@dwcjr> From: "David W. Chapman Jr." To: "Guy Helmer" Cc: , References: Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/secure/usr.sbin/sshd Makefile Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:51:57 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > 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. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message