On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 04:26:06PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> No, since I'm currently happy with the number of packages that I
> maintain. Also I'm tracking the OpenSSH development and so far it worked
> for me, so that I don't have a need to use ssh2.
I suggest that the number of people who do is insignificant, if it not
zero.
> Otherwise this looks for me like someone seeking an very simple and easy
> solution for handling release-critical bugs in packages maintained by
> the members of this list.
And one which is supported out by policy, section 2.1.2:
In addition, the packages in main (also section 2.1.4, for non-free)
...
* must not be so buggy that we refuse to support them, and
IMHO, it is justified to ditch packages which have been orphaned for
considerable time, and which suffer from considerable quantities of
bugs. Especially ones in non-free. It's not a general solution to all
RC bugs, but it is a general solution to packages with large numbers
of non-trivial bugs that have been unmaintained for some time.
Unless somebody can think up a _specific_ reason why ssh2 should be
kept, that is... (vague references to missing features of openssh are
not specific)
(ssh2 has also annoyed me for some time because newbies will persist
in thinking it is the only SSHv2 client/server, then get caught out by
its numerous bugs, many of which are non-trivial to fix)
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- http://www.debian.org/ | London, UK
