Created attachment 231806 [details] Modified openssh client, used by rxclient (formerly opennx) This is a port of Etersoft nxssh, a free software and even copyfree licensed modified openssh client, used by rxclient/opennx, with implementation of the nxssh executable, which is needed at runtime by net/opennx (see PR #240234). Note that ssh was omitted from USES, because openssl is already in base system, and portlint advised such an omission. See PR 240234 for more details on why nxssh is needed as a runtime dependency: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240234
Further note: the patches in files/ actually are derived from a large-scale patch directly written by the nxssh developers to resolve compatibility with modern openssl versions, but formatted to resolve portlint warnings. Also, to clarify, this PR is required to resolve the longstanding issue "net/opennx: Fails to execute /usr/local/bin/nxssh" (PR #240234), as previously implied.
Thanks for contribution but do we really want to import software that's seemingly abandoned upstream already and more or less unmaintainable?
The opennx port (much like it's replacement rxclient) does not work without an nxssh executable present, and prior nxssh executables to my knowledge were just proprietary linux binaries, and prior to this, I do not recall nxssh being available on FreeBSD, at least without the linuxulator. That being said, for years I've used RDP with xrdp in a commercial context for remote access, and have found it more than satisfactory, so this submission is mostly to resolve a long-standing issue ("Fails to execute /usr/local/bin/nxssh", PR #240234) with the net/opennx port, which I maintain. In short, I do not believe that net/opennx ever worked due to this previously missing executable. I don't know what the correct answer is, as I don't have the motivation or the use case to port rxclient right now, but as long as we still keep net/opennx, then we will need this in the ports tree. I understand the motivation to remove that port to reduce maintenance burden for everyone involved, and to make this port unnecessary, if that is deemed the correct approach.
Upstream is dead, I'd say no especially since it's a security related application on this one but if someone else insists go for it...
(In reply to Daniel Engberg from comment #4) Yes, that's an issue regarding security is involved. I'm fine with closing this PR as "Not Accepted". Really don't know what to say about net/opennx ( https://sourceforge.net/projects/opennx/ ) that doesn't show activity from ~5 years and it was always a non funcional port since it never had this port as a run dependency.
I see no other option than close this PR as not acepted. Thanks for contribution.