authorized_keys2 directory idea

[Markus Friedl]

On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 12:34:18AM -0400, Rob Hagopian wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 mouring at etoh.eviladmin.org wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Rob Hagopian wrote:
> >
> > > OpenSSH changed from the ssh.com directory method... not that that's
> > > always a bad thing, I prefer not having a separate .ssh2 directory. But a
> > > lot of other unix utils have moved to file based rather than line based
> >
> > No.. We did not.  ssh.com decided not to use their old single file
> > authorized_keys.  As for which we should follow.  I personally don't care.
> > It's no harder to me to manage it as a single file or as multiple little
> > files.  And the arguments I've seen really does not improve the odds of us
> > changing it.
> 
> But ssh.com v2 was around before OpenSSH... they fixed a lot of things
> from v1 to v2, I liked that one and was disappointed to see openssh revert
> back...

i did not revert from their version.

openssh is based on 1.2.12 and we improved 1.2.12.

i never touched ssh.com's v2, because it's not free software.

many people refused to switch to ssh.com's v2, not only because of
the restrictive licence, but because all the configuration changed.

remember, most of the ssh users are still v1 users.

i'm not going to do this. and i won't support 10 different
ways of specifying keys. this is openssh and not perl.

moreover, i don't see much benefit for directories over files.

> My suggestion was only to put it into /contrib... is that OK then?

depends on the size of the patch. but if we have it in contrib,
then ppl will start to expect this from core-openssh.

-m