Subject: Re: Any point to cvs using rsh? (was Re: Anoncvs pointer)
To: Ron Roskens <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: David Brownlee <email@example.com>
Date: 12/13/2002 16:12:12
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Ron Roskens wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2002, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > Chuck Yerkes <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > Is there any reason not to just have CVS (and rsync and rdist)
> > > just use ssh by default?
> > None but history. I would love to see patches that fix this by
> > default.
> > Those that want to still use rsh can turn that on, of course, but
> > defaults are for what most people want...
> FreeBSD has already done this:
> replaces both points where 'cvs_rsh = "rsh";' in client.c.
> Patches to rsync are in the FreeBSD ports tree.
This seems an eminently sensible change - providing its
well documented in the manpages and an FAQ added to the
David/absolute -- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --