From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Jul 9 23:31: 2 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 814E137B400; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 23:30:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 12-234-90-219.client.attbi.com (12-234-90-219.client.attbi.com [12.234.90.219]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE75B43E3B; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 23:30:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@FreeBSD.org) Received: from Master.gorean.org (master.gorean.org [10.0.0.2]) by 12-234-90-219.client.attbi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g6A6UMC2029155; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 23:30:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (doug@localhost) by Master.gorean.org (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g6A6Nhog006081; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 23:23:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Master.gorean.org: doug owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 23:23:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: "Andrew P. Lentvorski" Cc: Helge Oldach , Jay Sachs , , , Subject: Re: ssh to remote machines problem after cvsup In-Reply-To: <20020709173249.M68847-100000@mail.allcaps.org> Message-ID: <20020709231825.L5990-100000@master.gorean.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Andrew P. Lentvorski wrote: > There are actually 2 *separate* problems here. One concerns 4.6.1 and the > other concerns stuff after that.. The fact that you see them as two seperate problems is part of the problem. :) > I certainly do *not* agree that it should never make it into 4.7 (or > 4.6-stable or 4.X of any flavor). If this logic is followed to its absurd > conclusion, the 4.X series should cease being developed. the distinction that you are failing to make is that there are many different kinds of "changes" to the system. Changes that improve a driver, changes that update systems like sendmail, even when they require some small config changes, are candidates for -stable. Changes like this that have serious potential for causing major problems, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN DEMONSTRATED; are not. > On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Doug Barton also wrote: > > > The fact that it falls back does not mean that users can get into the box > > without intervention. Besides, you're missing the whole point here. Users > > should not have to deal with this AT ALL in -stable. > > If OpenSSH did a proper "attempt version 2(fail) -> attempt version > 1(succeed)" fallback, your original users *would* be able to get in > *without* change. This fact that this does not occur really is a > bug/misfeature of OpenSSH. It really should get reported to them. By > fixing this bug/misfeature, *everybody* wins and is happy. IF, at some point in the future, this works properly, then we can consider this. But, IT DOESN'T NOW. We don't do development like this in -stable in any case. We do it in -current. I'm going to drop this subject now, because there really isn't any further point in discussing it in this forum. Doug -- "We have known freedom's price. We have shown freedom's power. And in this great conflict, ... we will see freedom's victory." - George W. Bush, President of the United States State of the Union, January 28, 2002 Do YOU Yahoo!? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message