Potential Patch

[Ben Lindstrom]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Rob Braun wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:09:09PM -0500, Ben Lindstrom wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Rob Braun wrote:
> > [..]
> > > >
> > > > However, it may be something to consider and ensure BSM is more general if
> > > > Apple is also planning on using it.
> > >
> > > Apple is definitely currently using it, and will continue to be using it
> > > for the forseeable future.  I'd definitely like to see more generic BSM
> > > support.  Seeing solaris in the ssh logs on an OS X system is a little
> > > bizarre.
> > >
> >
> > Then Apple should take the time to document via manpages the API they are
> > using.  I would be nice to see a generic BSM, and I have no quarms with
> > that.  I have a big bitch about using APIs aren't document since that
> > tends to mean they are under flux.
>
> I agree completely, the APIs should be documented, if they want people
> to use them.  I would not accept patches from Apple that use unsupported
> and undocumented API.  Your original comment sounded like you were
> unsure if Apple were going to use BSM with OpenSSH, and I wanted to lay
> to rest any uncertainty in that area.

I was uncertian if OS/X Server has BSM enabled by default at the OS level.
I know the desktop doesn't since I'm running that with a custom OpenSSH
server and have none of the tradition issues.

> It would be great if OpenSSH could cooperate with Apple in incorporating
> generic BSM support, but the hold up is more likely Apple cooperating
> with OpenSSH in this regard.
>

Would be nice if Apple would cooperate with us.  I've not seen hide nor
hair of them on this mailinglist.  Nor have I been contacted by them in
regards to the KRB5/zlib header bug I pointed out almost 5 months now.
Nor about the existances of a "getpeereuid()" manpage, but the lack of
it's real existance.

I'm kinda disappointed at that since I've  seen Sun, IBM, Cray, random
Linux distros, etc reps hang out here to help sort out such issues in the
past.

- Ben