From owner-cvs-all Tue Mar 19 12:14: 3 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from magellan.palisadesys.com (magellan.palisadesys.com [192.188.162.211]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC71D37B497; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:12:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ghelmer@localhost) by magellan.palisadesys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2JKBtT13059; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:11:55 -0600 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:11:55 -0600 (CST) From: Guy Helmer To: "David W. Chapman Jr." Cc: , Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/secure/usr.sbin/sshd Makefile In-Reply-To: <018101c1cf7f$86f601b0$d800a8c0@dwcjr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 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