| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:16:35 +0000 |
| 4 |
bugzilla-daemon@g.o wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Clear-Text: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178302 |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>------- Comment #1 from vapier@g.o 2007-05-13 22:16 0000 ------- |
| 9 |
> hey look i provided an answer there as well: |
| 10 |
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/44313 |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Even back then I didn't really know how to interpret that: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
"no, get it upgraded upstream" |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
You mean I should get the OpenSSH people to integrate the |
| 17 |
chmod/chown/umask functionality into their mainline sources? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
It took them several years to get the logging part integrated, |
| 20 |
and they probably have seen the sftplogging patch, did know |
| 21 |
that there is that chmod/chown/umask functionality, and they |
| 22 |
haven't integrated that for some (to me, unimaginable) reason. |
| 23 |
What do you think how long it would take for me or anybody |
| 24 |
else to convince them to integrate that as well? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I'm running an sftp fileserver which can only be secured by |
| 27 |
using that functionality so I could not upgrade the OpenSSH |
| 28 |
on that server for about a year now since the sftplogging |
| 29 |
patch has been removed from the ebuild. Do you really think |
| 30 |
that we, who are using that functionality, want to wait some |
| 31 |
more years for the OpenSSH people to integrate the another |
| 32 |
half of the functionality of that patch? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Shouldn't it be done so that you don't just ditch a function |
| 35 |
set that is heavily used and depended on by several people |
| 36 |
until the upstream folks don't fully integrate it? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
I really don't understand the way you're thinking. |
| 39 |
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm stupid, please enlighten me! |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Thanks, |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Sab |
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives