Re: Testing of lsbdev and sample implementation
Matt Taggart writes:
> I personally am opposed to adding rsh, but I guess the argument
> could be made that the client half is probably "standard". I don't
> know how many distributions install rsh-server by default though.
I hope not too many anymore :-)
> ssh has crypto legal problems. While I'd love to see it in lsb I
> think it would be the first crypto thing and would have to fight
> whatever battles that means. I think its now possible(at least this
> week, who knows with these things) and could happen though.
I'd see requiring rsh (even as a client) as a step backwards, but I
agree ssh does have legal problems and we shouldn't be requiring
programs which may not be permitted to be exported from the US. As a
compromise I wonder if it possible to specify the requirement for
rsh-like functionality which can be implemented either by rsh or ssh.
I think this can wait for a later update of the spec though.
Chris.
--
cyeoh@au.ibm.com
IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group
Canberra, Australia
Reply to: