[ On , November 17, 2002 at 10:23:47 (+1100), Jenn Vesperman wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Moving to Pserver from .rhosts
>
> Why a remote host? Because this way I automatically have two copies, in
> two different locations, at all times.
That's not a bad reason, though it wouldn
Greg wrote:
> > True, but to us, there's actually only one developer, person X.
> Then why even bother with remote access via CVS? If that one developer
> wants to work on files on some other host then they can easily copy them
> over to it as necessary, and back again when they're done.
>
> CVS i
On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 07:25, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Saturday, November 16, 2002 at 12:18:19 (+0100), Fredrik Wendt wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: Moving to Pserver from .rhosts
> >
> > True, but to us, there's actually only one developer, person X.
>
> Then why ev
[ On Saturday, November 16, 2002 at 12:18:19 (+0100), Fredrik Wendt wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Moving to Pserver from .rhosts
>
> True, but to us, there's actually only one developer, person X.
Then why even bother with remote access via CVS? If that one developer
wants to work on
Greg A. Woods wrote, On 2002-11-15 19:40:
[ On Friday, November 15, 2002 at 17:08:16 (+0100), Fredrik Wendt wrote: ]
Subject: Re: Moving to Pserver from .rhosts
It has the advantage of not having the user at the cvs server
adding/rewriting files, but only the user that the pserver runs as
Larry Jones wrote:
Mahantesh writes:
we have working repository running right now. Currently the mode of
authentication is .rhosts.
We are planning to migrate the mode of authentication to pserver.
Why? :ext: is generally consider superior to :pserver:, particularly
when used with ssh rather
Greg A. Woods wrote:
[ On Friday, November 15, 2002 at 11:17:10 (-0800), Shankar Unni wrote: ]
Subject: RE: Moving to Pserver from .rhosts
Greg opines:
Then you have no accountability in your CVS repository. None.
You have as much accountability as you have from ssh and the passwd
file
[ On Friday, November 15, 2002 at 11:17:10 (-0800), Shankar Unni wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: Moving to Pserver from .rhosts
>
> Greg opines:
>
> > Then you have no accountability in your CVS repository. None.
>
> You have as much accountability as you have from ssh and the
Greg opines:
> Then you have no accountability in your CVS repository. None.
Argh. Give it a rest, Greg.
You have as much accountability as you have from ssh and the passwd
file: you know the name of the person (from the pserver passwd file),
and that is recorded in the repository.
And yeah,
[ On Friday, November 15, 2002 at 17:08:16 (+0100), Fredrik Wendt wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Moving to Pserver from .rhosts
>
> It has the advantage of not having the user at the cvs server
> adding/rewriting files, but only the user that the pserver runs as
> (which might take som
Greg A. Woods wrote, On 2002-11-15 00:49:
Because it's how remote CVS was designed to be used and because it is
the only way to make remote CVS access secure. CVS-pserver is not
secure in any way whatsoever and cannot be made secure.
That's partly wrong. If you set up the pserver and makes su
I'm no
fan of .rhosts on public networks, but .ssh (the directory holding the SSH
equivalent of .rhosts configuration files) is extremely secure, and proof
against all but the most robust attacks. If you read the 'man
ssh' page, it'll explain why (and how).
Basically, "why" comes down to:
[ On Thursday, November 14, 2002 at 08:20:18 (+0100), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Moving to Pserver from .rhosts
>
> This is the second reply that implies that .rhosts is superior to pserver
> - can someone explain why?
Because it's how remote CVS was design
info-cvs
To: Mahantesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Moving to Pserver from .rhosts
[ On Tuesday, November 12, 2002 at 19:28:49 (+0530), Mahantesh wrote: ]
> Subject: Moving to Pserver from .rhosts
>
>
[ On Tuesday, November 12, 2002 at 19:28:49 (+0530), Mahantesh wrote: ]
> Subject: Moving to Pserver from .rhosts
>
> we have working repository running right now. Currently the mode of
> authentication is .rhosts.
> We are planning to migrate the mode of authentication to pserve
Mahantesh writes:
>
> we have working repository running right now. Currently the mode of
> authentication is .rhosts.
> We are planning to migrate the mode of authentication to pserver.
Why? :ext: is generally consider superior to :pserver:, particularly
when used with ssh rather than rsh.
> M
Hi,
we have working repository running right now. Currently the mode of
authentication is .rhosts.
We are planning to migrate the mode of authentication to pserver. Also
after moving to pserver mode we should be
able have all the versions we have right now.
My question is, whether it is enough ju
17 matches
Mail list logo
