Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:18:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Matt Heckaman <matt@ARPA.MAIL.NET> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Kenneth W Cochran <kwc@world.std.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 4.0-stable, OpenSSH v1 & v2 Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005292115580.56249-100000@epsilon.lucida.qc.ca> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005291804490.4097-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 29 May 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote: [...] : > Is it reasonable to assume that OpenSSH v2 will (should) : > disappear from ports when/if it goes to the main source tree? : : Once we stop supporting FreeBSD 3.x in ports.. To be honest, do we WANT to stop supporting it in the ports? I would argue that this is a case similar to BIND. It takes much longer for a new version to get merged into -STABLE than it does to get into the ports. I use BIND as an example here, but the same would apply for OpenSSL. What I would love to see is ports installing in the same location as the base program if on an OS with it in the base. For example: OpenSSH would install to /usr prefix (/usr/share for man) with the config settings pointing to /etc/ssh if the user is using 4.x. It would install as normal to /usr/local if running 3.x (or anything else) You get the general idea. This probably wouldn't be too difficult to do (I think). My real question is, would something like this be _accepted_ into the ports? : Kris Matt Heckaman matt@arpa.mail.net http://www.lucida.qc.ca -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (FreeBSD) Comment: http://www.lucida.qc.ca/pgp iD8DBQE5MxbudMMtMcA1U5ARAvYZAKCSGTSHIttGUEo6hAXfkssKrQZV8wCguMwK AJakL7SRMtA0E3kPQO7fEvk= =c9D/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0005292115580.56249-100000>