> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:58:19PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > I've been privately bugging some users for testing. Some are busy.
> >
> > There is no point in testing a diff which is wrong.
>
> What do you think should be the approach ?
Are you a troll?
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:58:19PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > I've been privately bugging some users for testing. Some are busy.
>
> There is no point in testing a diff which is wrong.
What do you think should be the approach ?
> I've been privately bugging some users for testing. Some are busy.
There is no point in testing a diff which is wrong.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 01:56:01PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Improved the diff slightly by removing temp arglist, and
> > converting while loops to for loops. This makes the diff
> > less hackish.
>
> Does it work 100% like scp and rcp?
No. It supports remote to local and local to remote but
> Improved the diff slightly by removing temp arglist, and
> converting while loops to for loops. This makes the diff
> less hackish.
Does it work 100% like scp and rcp?
Or is it different in some way that is going to screw someone?
Since the diff is coming from you, I strongly suspect it is dif
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 12:57:17PM +1000, Damien Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Loganaden Velvindron wrote:
>
> > s/similar/A little bit like
> >
> > The diff has issues with stuff like sftp 127.0.0.1. I've
> > fixed it.
>
> I think this might get confused by something like:
>
> sftp blah
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 12:57:17PM +1000, Damien Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Loganaden Velvindron wrote:
>
> > s/similar/A little bit like
> >
> > The diff has issues with stuff like sftp 127.0.0.1. I've
> > fixed it.
>
> I think this might get confused by something like:
>
> sftp blah
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 12:57:17PM +1000, Damien Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Loganaden Velvindron wrote:
>
> > s/similar/A little bit like
> >
> > The diff has issues with stuff like sftp 127.0.0.1. I've
> > fixed it.
>
> I think this might get confused by something like:
>
> sftp blah
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Loganaden Velvindron wrote:
> s/similar/A little bit like
>
> The diff has issues with stuff like sftp 127.0.0.1. I've
> fixed it.
I think this might get confused by something like:
sftp blah user@host: foo user2@host:
IMO it would be better to walk all the arguments and t
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Loganaden Velvindron wrote:
> s/similar/A little bit like
>
> The diff has issues with stuff like sftp 127.0.0.1. I've
> fixed it.
The way I'd like to see the sftp commandline go is to become mostly
compatible with scp(1). So:
sftp local [local...] remote:/path # do
s/similar/A little bit like
The diff has issues with stuff like sftp 127.0.0.1. I've
fixed it.
Index: src/usr.bin/ssh/sftp.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/ssh/sftp.c,v
retrieving revision 1.132
diff -u -p -r1.132 sftp.c
--- src/usr.
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:11:50 -0400 (EDT)
logana...@devio.us (Loganaden Velvindron) wrote:
> This makes sftp similar to scp whereby
> one can also do something like:
> sftp user@remotehost://
>
> I'm too lazy to use interactive mode :-)
Check batch - '-b'. Anyway, if you want to improve sftp, th
> This makes sftp similar to scp whereby
> one can also do something like:
> sftp user@remotehost://
What you have written isn't even close to "similar". "A little bit like",
maybe. But not "similar".
This makes sftp similar to scp whereby
one can also do something like:
sftp user@remotehost://
I'm too lazy to use interactive mode :-)
Index: sftp.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/ssh/sftp.c,v
retrieving revision 1.132
diff -u -p -
14 matches
Mail list logo
