OpenSSH HPN

[Bryan Drewery]

On 11/11/2015 3:56 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:18:08AM -0800, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> 
>> On 11/11/2015 10:13 AM, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:51:25PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bryan Drewery <bdrewery at FreeBSD.org> writes:
>>>>> Another thing that I did with the port was restore the tcpwrapper
>>>>> support that upstream removed. Again, if we decide it is not worth
>>>>> keeping in base I will remove it as default in the port.
>>>>
>>>> I want to keep tcpwrapper support - it is another reason why I still
>>>> haven't upgraded OpenSSH, but to the best of my knowledge, it is far
>>>> less intrusive than HPN.
>>>
>>> Can you explain what is problem?
>>> I am see openssh in base and openssh in ports (more recent version)
>>> with same functionaly patches.
>>> You talk about trouble to upgrade. What is root?
>>> openssh in base have different vendor and/or license?
>>> Or something else?
>>>
>>> PS: As I today know, kerberos heimdal is practicaly dead as opensource
>>> project. Have FreeBSD planed switch to MIT Kerberos?
>>> I am know about security/krb5.
>>>
>>
>> IMHO the problem comes down to time. Patching an upstream project
>> increases maintenance cost for upgrading it. Every patch adds up. When
>> you become busy and don't have time to pay attention to every little
>> change made in a release, hearing 'removed tcpwrappers support' or
>> 'refactored the code <more> for libssh usage' makes it sound like 1 more
>> thing you must deal with to upgrade that code base and more effort to
>> validate that your patches are right. We obviously don't want to just
>> drop in the latest code and throw it out there as broken. SSH is quite
>> critical and we want to ensure our changes are still right, and that
>> doing something like adding tcpwrappers back in won't introduce some
>> security bug that upstream was coy about.
> 
> Some for as ports version?
> Or ports version different?
> Or port mantainer have more time (this is not to blame for DES)?
> I am just don't know what is different between port ssh and base ssh.
> We need ssh 6.x in base, not 7.x as in port (why?) and this is need
> independed work on pathes?
> I am missing somehow commonplace for others.
> 

I am the ports maintainer. That was my opinion on why OpenSSH falls
behind. There is no real difference between the base and port version
except that the port version has some more optional patches, and is
easier to push updates for through ports and packages, rather than an
Errata through freebsd-update or a full release to get to the latest
OpenSSH version.

There have been many times where the base version was more up-to-date
than the port as well due to the lack of a maintainer or the previously
mentioned patch blockers.

-- 
Regards,
Bryan Drewery

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security/attachments/20151111/20709a78/attachment.bin>