Date: 21 Feb 2000 12:54:51 +0100 From: Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai=?iso-8859-1?q?_Gro=DFjohann?=) To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: openssl in -current Message-ID: <vafu2j2n52s.fsf@lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de> In-Reply-To: "Jordan K. Hubbard"'s message of "Sun, 20 Feb 2000 18:06:17 -0800" References: <19347.951098777@zippy.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> writes: > I'm not totally inflexible about making the engineering vs user > argument either, don't get me wrong, but this one is perilously in the > middle and bringing something like openssh in as a companion to > openssl would certainly raise my estimation of openssl as a 4.0 > candidate. Yes, I'd even be willing to delay the release date for > something like that. So does this mean that the question has now become `do we want OpenSSH in 4.0 (in the base system)'? I'm just a newbie and an outside observer. Apparently, OpenSSH has been available as a port for a while. Do you think it would be useful to think about the hassle the user has to go through to install OpenSSH? Is it any more difficult for the user when OpenSSH is a port? (I gather that it is possible to use pkg_add to install parts of the base system as well as pre-compiled ports. So in general I might not even know whether `pkg_add -r foo' installs a port or a part of the base system?) Feel free to ignore me if this was really stupid. kai -- ~/.signature: No such file or directory To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?vafu2j2n52s.fsf>