Re: [Sshkeychain-developers] packaging question: ssh?

[Dustin J. M. <dustin@v.igoro.us>]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Bart Matthaei <ba...@dr...> wrote:
> I'm not quite sure about dropping Panther support. I could imagine
> that one of the reasons
> you want to use SSHKeychain could be that you're working on an older
> system, with no
> built-in ssh-agent support. Not that this is a valid reason to keep
> Panther support, since
> I imagine most OS X users update their stuff :-)

For some reason I can never remember the code-names for OS X versions,
but personally I have a system with 10.4 and a system with 10.3.  I'll
save my $80 to put toward new hardware, thankyouverymuch. :)

Since 'ssh' has been included already, and since there don't appear to
be licensing implications to including the binary, let's continue to
keep it in the build, possibly only using it for Panther.  If we come
up with a trickier issue, then dropping Panther support is fine.

> This brings us back to a question that has been asked on this
> mailinglist before: what is
> the reason you want to use SSHKeychain on 10.5? It might be the extra
> security features
> SSHKeychain has, or the tunnel support, but it sure isn't the basic
> ssh-agent stuff,
> since that's already covered.

But it is *exactly* the agent stuff I need it for in 10.4 and 10.3 :)

> Personally, I think that we should make the whole 'ssh-agent' part
> optional, so you can choose
> to use OS X's built-in implementation (or any other, for that matter)
> if you feel like it, and use
> SSHKeychain as a helper application for tunnels and added security.

This sounds like a great proposal.

> The tunnel implementation is also very rudimentary at the moment, so
> that should be improved
> as well IMHO.

No argument there.

To be honest, the thing I'm interested in chasing down is an
occasional livelock that results in SSHKeychain using up 100% CPU.
With that fixed, I'll be completely happy with the app :)

Dustin

-- 
Open Source Storage Engineer
http://www.zmanda.com