On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de wrote:
> On 30 Mar, Georg Schwarz wrote:

> > unfortunaltely this assumes I already have a working "development"
> > system (compilers, etc.) :-(

> Untar comp.tgz ;-)

Yeah, getting a development system running isn't too difficult.

> OK, OK. But remember the number of hardware platforms NetBSD is
> running on. It is imposible to provide precompiled binary packages for
> every platform. Puting ssh in tree is a legal problem (no BSD
> licence). Maybe this will be solved by OpenSSH. It is allready
> integrated in to the FreeBSD base system. 

I don't see any technical problems with providing it as a precompiled
package for NetBSD/vax.  I don't see any great need to include it in the
base distribution.  I compiled up a couple of hundred other packages for
NetBSD/vax 1.4.1, so ssh isn't difficult to add.  The binary package
repository already does a pretty reasonable job of offering things for all
the ports.

At the time, providing a binary package of ssh had some sort of legal
encumberment, or so I was led to believe so I didn't compile it.  If
anyone can clarify the legal export status of precompiled ssh binaries, we
may be able to provide them.

There's nothing sacred about NetBSD providing support for only BSD
licensed software.  Non-BSD licensed software may not be in the main
tree, but then who really cares?  Everything's open to be included as an
optional package.  Which IMHO helps to make NetBSD the cleanest open
source Unix available.

-brian.
--- Brian Chase | bdc@world.std.com | http://world.std.com/~bdc/ -----
Has anyone else had any bad experiences with Mr. Vader or his Empire? -- K.