Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 07:33:06 -0700 From: Fred Condo <fred@condo.chico.ca.us> To: Mike Jakubik <mikej@trigger.net> Cc: Stable <stable@FreeBSD.ORG>, dinoex@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sshd vs ports sshd Message-ID: <20020710143306.GC70071@absinthe.condo.chico.ca.us> In-Reply-To: <HPEHJFKBNEHFPAOFMEDDAEHEDNAA.mikej@trigger.net> References: <HPEHJFKBNEHFPAOFMEDDAEHEDNAA.mikej@trigger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 10:08:42AM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote:
> There seems to be a conflict in the 'sshd' user of FreeBSD's built in sshd
> and the ports version.
>
> passwd diffs:
> 12a13
> > sshd:(password):22:22::0:0:Secure Shell Daemon:/var/empty:/sbin/nologin
> 21d21
> < sshd:(password):22:22::0:0:sshd privilege
> separation:/usr/local/empty:/nonexistent
>
> IMHO: This is exactly why server software should not be included in the base
> distribution of FreeBSD.
>
I strenuously disagree. Should inetd be a port? Sendmail? What about
syslogd or named? Although not all should be on by default, they are
certainly essential to enough users that they should be part of the
default installation.
The ports collection, as useful and glorious as it is, is too unstable
for software this critical. Bear in mind that the only tag on the
ports collection is HEAD; there is no conservative RELENG_4_6 for the
ports. The situation with sshd is an anomaly; basing global policy on
this experience would be a Bad Thing.
--
Fred Condo - fred@condo.chico.ca.us
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well.
-- Joe Ancis
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?20020710143306.GC70071>