[PATCH] Updated *sh://host... patch

peter.kourzanov at xs4all.nl peter.kourzanov at xs4all.nl
Tue May 20 15:56:29 CDT 2008


  There is krb5-rsh, which is as secure as Kerberos is. Heck,
there is even ssh-krb5 support...

  So, why do you say rsh is not supported? It works for me...
If fact I see no reason why any tool that works similarly to
ssh/rsh should not be supported... In the patch I assume
that any tool whose name ends with *sh (OK, dropbear is an exception,
but that is an ssh clone isn't it, so it does warrant a --ssh option)
is a remote shell-like program that can be used to setup a channel for 



On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 01:54:12PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 12:34 +0200, Peter Kourzanov wrote:
> > Benoit,
> > 
> > It is a little strange to specify --ssh=rsh ssh://host/path... Isn't
> > it much more precise and consistent to
> > just use rsh://host/path?
> It would be if we supported rsh, but we don't! Rsh is a bad idea even on
> 'secure' networks as it's just far too promiscuous, and it would be
> irresponsible of us to even mention its unfortunate continued existence
> as someone might then decide to use it. Instead, we support using random
> ssh-like tools, like fsh, lsh, dropbear, etc. But we're not going to
> support cool things like fsh: so why would we support rsh:?
> -- 
> Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list