On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, matthew green wrote:

>    Just another example why rlogin is a kludge and telnet is a protocol.
> 
> on a related note, ssh is a tool.  :-)
> 
> i think that importing ssh in to our tree would be a wonderful idea.
> unfortunately, it would have to go in src/distrib, because it is
> encryption technology.
> 
> i think it is time that we had (at least) one of these international
> ftp/sup servers that can maintain their own copies of src/distrib
> (preferably having the _same_ person doing each part, if possible,
> but this restricts who can maintain certain parts of the source
> tree, i guess.  maybe even using an international cvs server [just
> for src/distrib]).
> 
> is anyone able to do this ?
> 
> is it feasible or even wanted ?

I don't think ssh should be put in the tree, since it compiles cleanly 
out of the box on all systems I have tried it on. If ssh was imported 
into the NetBSD tree a possible result is a separate development effort 
from that of the original author. Such separate developments usually 
leads to incompatibillities, and is therefore, IMHO, bad.

I think ssh belongs more in a prepared distribution of NetBSD, much lite 
those made with Linux. Such a distribution would, in addition to the 
standard NetBSD stuff contain emacs, tex and all the other tools I find 
myself compiling over and over again. Different distributions could then 
target different users, instead of the "one size fits all" approach.

And, no, I have neither the experience nor the time to compile such 
distributions.

Peter