[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [MERGE-REQUEST] Support for several SSH implementat

From: Alfred M\. Szmidt
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [MERGE-REQUEST] Support for several SSH implementations
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:26:48 +0100

   I wondered, too.  Probably `ARCH_' would be a better prefix.

Agreed.  Even better if it was _really_ generic.

   > Adding _BINARY is redundant too.

   No, it's not.  By default, the program name is determined based on
   the SSH implementation type.  I.e., the default program name for
   implementation type `lsh' is `lshc', the program name for `openssh'
   is `ssh', etc.

   But sometimes you'll want to specify another program name, like
   `lshg' for implementation type `lsh', or, say, `/usr/openstuff/ssh'
   for `openssh', hence the `_BINARY' option.

I still consider it redundant, since just ARCH_SSH (or whatever it
should be called) is explanatory enough.

   That's what I thought at first but it is not true in the current
   implementation: tla really expects some implementation of SFTP, not
   an arbitrary RSH implementation.

Then I think SFTP would be a better name for the variable, or FTP or
some such.  If it isn't pure SSH then it shouldn't be called SSH,

   So do I.  But note that (on PPC at least) an `abrowse' with `lshc'
   or even `lshg' turns out to be much, much slower (around 12 times
   as slow as OpenSSH!).

Try running just tla on GNU, you'll think that 12 times slower is

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]