From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (unknown [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B60081381FA for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 15:43:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BAF03E0A72; Sat, 10 May 2014 15:43:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19D0BE0A6D for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 15:43:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (unknown [5.69.184.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hwoarang) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6E4A33FDA6 for ; Sat, 10 May 2014 15:43:15 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <536E48AD.3060007@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 16:41:33 +0100 From: Markos Chandras User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014 References: <536DC13A.4050606@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <536DC13A.4050606@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a565e74b-6ada-4b9b-ade3-f71f8d015201 X-Archives-Hash: 8c86d015102e9be4abf2ad9282500250 On 05/10/2014 07:03 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > On 10/05/14 05:56, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 01:21:33PM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=507210 >>> net-misc/opensshd: do not enable USE=hpn by default >>> >>> Both bugs have seen dismissive responses from the base-system team, >>> which I find somewhat disappointing. I understand that they are quite >>> busy, but it seems to me that these bugs could at least get a serious >>> response, rather than a fairly blunt "no" (but it might just be me?). >> As the dev that did a number of the ports to a new version for HPN, and >> sent that to upstream, I would really like upstream openssh to accept >> the hpn patches. They provide a huge performance boost: i've used them >> to copy multiple terabytes at >800mbit transatlantic. >> >> As a member of base-system, I feel the performance benefit of the patch, >> and that it has no downsides or extra dependencies is sufficent for it >> to be enabled by default. >> > > As a member of base-system too, I concur with everything you just said. > > - Samuli > I also agree but I would also like to mention that I do not think discussing the 'default USE flags' is so important. Anyone who cares about security or production use of openssh he/she should be able to figure out the good default for him/her and disable those that he/she consider dangerous. Why people are so nervous about the default use flags? it's a simple one line in package.use to configure your package they way you want to. In my opinion, the default use flags should be left at maintainers' discretion -- Regards, Markos Chandras