Thus spake Lucky Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
... remove ssh1 fallback from the default ...
David Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Removing SSH 1 ... is going to break compatibility ...
Tim Kientzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
POLA: before breaking compatibility, warn people.
... "Warning: switch
Thus spake Tim Kientzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Thus spake Lucky Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>... remove ssh1 fallback from the default ...
>
> David Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Removing SSH 1 ... is going to break compatibility ...
>
>
> POLA: before breaking compatibility, warn peop
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 03:14:55PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> This still changes a machine that works into a machine that doesn't
> work. How is that an "upgrade"?
I've no doubt some informed, good intentioned persons said the same
thing when telnetd was no longer enabled by default. *shrug* T
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Then remove the "upgrade" option off the sysinstall menu, and be
> done with the issue: "Upgrade not supported for 5.0".
I think this is a *BRILLIANT* idea. Not supporting "upgrade" from 4.X to
5.0 will stave off loads of problems that will all be answ
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 03:29:30PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Brooks Davis wrote:
> >
> > A binary upgrade to 5.0 isn't going to be much better. If you just
> > do it, it's going to leave you with most of the problems described in
> > UPDATING. You're still going to have to remember to delete
Juli Mallett wrote:
> * De: Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-10-23 ]
> [ Subjecte: Re: Request: remove ssh1 fallback ]
> > [snipped]
>
> You're essentially arguing that upgrade should not change anything, but
> somehow that moving old stuff ou
* De: Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-10-23 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Request: remove ssh1 fallback ]
> [snipped]
You're essentially arguing that upgrade should not change anything, but
somehow that moving old stuff out of the way should be done? How is it
exactly th
Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 12:56:55PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Brooks Davis wrote:
> > > I think it's safe to say that if you do a remote upgrade to 5.0 and
> > > miss this change (if it happens), you're probably going to have missed
> > > several other more important chan
Andrew Mishchenko wrote:
> On Wed 23 Oct, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > What if the client machine is a SSH1 Solaris (or Windows) box
> > going into a FreeBSD rackmount?
> >
> > It should *at least* be available as a command line option to
> > the daemon; since some boxes *don't have* consoles at all, i
"David W. Chapman Jr." wrote:
> > Changing behaviour on an upgrade, without the user's consent, is
> > a bad thing (note: *consent*, not *knowledge*: it's not up to the
> > user to know about everything some programmer has diddled into
> > non-operability in the two years since FreeBSD 5.x was bran
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Andrew Mishchenko wrote:
> On Wed 23 Oct, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > What if the client machine is a SSH1 Solaris (or Windows) box
> > going into a FreeBSD rackmount?
> >
> > It should *at least* be available as a command line option to
> > the daemon; since some boxes *don't ha
On Wed 23 Oct, Terry Lambert wrote:
> What if the client machine is a SSH1 Solaris (or Windows) box
> going into a FreeBSD rackmount?
>
> It should *at least* be available as a command line option to
> the daemon; since some boxes *don't have* consoles at all, it
> would have the same effect of tu
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 12:56:55PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Brooks Davis wrote:
> > I think it's safe to say that if you do a remote upgrade to 5.0 and
> > miss this change (if it happens), you're probably going to have missed
> > several other more important change. A source upgrade from 4.x
> Check the mailing list archives around 4.3-RELEASE, when it was
> discovered that /etc/pam.conf didn't get "ssh" lines added to it
> on upgrades, and people were getting locked out of boxes left and
> right (predates "other" entries).
>
> Changing behaviour on an upgrade, without the user's cons
Brooks Davis wrote:
> I think it's safe to say that if you do a remote upgrade to 5.0 and
> miss this change (if it happens), you're probably going to have missed
> several other more important change. A source upgrade from 4.x to 5.x
> is definatly not for the faint of heart or the non detail ori
Steven Ames wrote:
> From: "Terry Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > So I upgrade, and I can't get back into the box from my SSH1
> > client machine to reenable SSH1 services on the box. Genius!
> > 8-) 8-).
>
> Its somewhat less than genious not to look over any new config
> files you've installed
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:16:26PM -0500, Steven Ames wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Terry Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > So I upgrade, and I can't get back into the box from my SSH1
> > client machine to reenable SSH1 services on the box. Genius!
> > 8-) 8-).
>
> Its somewh
- Original Message -
From: "Terry Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So I upgrade, and I can't get back into the box from my SSH1
> client machine to reenable SSH1 services on the box. Genius!
> 8-) 8-).
Its somewhat less than genious not to look over any new config
files you've installed t
David wrote:
> Thus spake Steven Ames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Making SSH 2 the default is one thing. Removing SSH 1 as
> a fallback
> > > altogether is going to break compatibility with other
> systems like
> > > you'd never believe. For example, I regularly need to SSH into
> > > Solaris
Andrew Mishchenko wrote:
> On Wed 23 Oct, David Schultz wrote:
> > In either case, you break compatibility. Say I wanted to SSH from
> > those Solaris boxen to my home machine, for example. (I don't,
> > but that's not the point.) If my SSH server didn't have the SSH 1
> > fallback, there's noth
Steven Ames wrote:
> > Thus spake Lucky Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I therefore believe that the 5.0 release represents a perfect
> > > opportunity to remove ssh1 fallback from the default distribution of
> > > FreeBSD and hope the FreeBSD team will consider this change.
> >
> > Making SSH 2 t
On Wed 23 Oct, David Schultz wrote:
> In either case, you break compatibility. Say I wanted to SSH from
> those Solaris boxen to my home machine, for example. (I don't,
> but that's not the point.) If my SSH server didn't have the SSH 1
> fallback, there's nothing I could do from the command lin
Thus spake Steven Ames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Making SSH 2 the default is one thing. Removing SSH 1 as a
> > fallback altogether is going to break compatibility with other
> > systems like you'd never believe. For example, I regularly need
> > to SSH into Solaris boxen running SSH 1. These mac
> Thus spake Lucky Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I therefore believe that the 5.0 release represents a perfect
> > opportunity to remove ssh1 fallback from the default distribution of
> > FreeBSD and hope the FreeBSD team will consider this change.
>
> Making SSH 2 the default is one thing. Remo
Thus spake Lucky Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I therefore believe that the 5.0 release represents a perfect
> opportunity to remove ssh1 fallback from the default distribution of
> FreeBSD and hope the FreeBSD team will consider this change.
Making SSH 2 the default is one thing. Removing SSH 1 a
If I understand correctly, the next opportunity after 5.0R to make a
change of such significance is FreeBSD 6.0. Since I suspect that few
folks will want to have ssh1 enabled by the time 6.0 is released, I
would like to request for the team to please consider disabling ssh1
fallback prior to 5.0R.
26 matches
Mail list logo
