Paul Iadonisi wrote: > As far as support goes, it is obviously fully within the rights of the > OpenSSH team to disown this so-called fork. Red Hat doesn't *support* > Fedora Core, anyhow, and isn't likely to tell RHEL customers to 'go to > the OpenSSH team' for OpenSSH support. > So I'm with Seth, here. Even only a *cursory* look at the source rpm > (which the OpenSSH team appears to have done, hence this heavily > cross-posted message) easily reveals what Red Hat has done. Nothing > clandestine about it at all. This should have been dealt with through > the other channels Seth has mentioned instead of assuming the worst and > blasting a message to four mailing list, including one (fedora-list) > with many inexperienced users (that's why a lot of them are on the > list...for help) who may end up quite frazzled by it. Makes one wonder > if that was the intention. > I'm not suggesting that Redhat has made clandestine changes, any such changes aren't really clandestine when they can be revealed with "diff". I am saying that we don't have the time (or the desire) to go and check what changes RedHat make to their tarball for each release. Patches are easy: they are instantly readable and most of them don't change from release to release anyway. Given the choice of improving OpenSSH vs. chasing up hidden vendor changes motivated by a misguided legal department before I can determine whether a bug report is valid, I know which will always win. Some people have taken offence to my cross-posting, I don't understand why; my original message is of relevance to openssh users, Fedora users and Fedora developers - the very lists that I posted to. -d
