Re: lsh 0.1 released (gpl'ed ssh)
"J.H.M. Dassen" <email@example.com> writes:
> I have a preliminary debianisation (mainly because it helps me compile it
> easier). There are a couple of problems with packaging lsh I can see now.
> - The daemon isn't a real daemon yet. I have patches for that which haven't
> been incorporated upstream.
> - It relies on a non-free interpreter (scsh) for building. Tommi Virtanen has
> sent me details on how to use scm instead, so it'll be fit for non-us/main
> rather than non-us/contrib.
> - I don't know how to resolve the port conflict. Port 22 is for the SSH
> protocol, both v1 and v2. lsh can fallback to calling sshd1 (just like
> sshd2 can), but I'm not sure how to properly ensure it, rather than sshd1,
> gets port 22.
If you tell me an easy way to diagnose the presence of lsh, then I'll
just make execution of sshd1 conditional on it not being there.
BTW, what are you going to call it, given that we already have:
Maintainer: Joey Hess <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Description: Baby Shell for Novices with DOS compatible commands
Is there any other psst implementation ? If not you could call it
psst, or perhaps psst-lsh ? Although there's still the name conflict
with lsh, I'd imagine.
> - Last time I checked, lsh and SSH2 weren't interoperable yet. (SSH2 used
> to not implement the spec properly; some improvements were made, but the
> issue isn't gone yet I fear)
Is it possible to spot ssh2 at the other end, and have lsh just give
I doubt there there are many people that are going to be using both in
the near future, since they appeal to different people.
For the odd one or two that might want to mix and match, they can
always explicitly run ssh1 when confronted with a machine from the
other camp, and force the other end to drop back to ssh1 as well.