Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:14:21 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> Cc: Guy Helmer <ghelmer@palisadesys.com>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/secure/usr.sbin/sshd Makefile Message-ID: <20020319121421.A15380@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <018101c1cf7f$86f601b0$d800a8c0@dwcjr>; from dwcjr@inethouston.net on Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 01:51:57PM -0600 References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0203191253290.12151-100000@magellan.palisadesys.com> <018101c1cf7f$86f601b0$d800a8c0@dwcjr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 01:51:57PM -0600, 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. Examples please, not empty conjectures. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020319121421.A15380>