On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Steffen Möller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Charles Plessy schrieb: >> Le Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:32:42AM +0200, Teodor a écrit : >>> I still believe it is best to rename 'plink' to 'puttylink' in >>> putty-tools binary package. Anyway, this should be fixed for squeeze >>> since in lenny there is no conflict (plink is not included in lenny).
That was based on the assumption that the project name is well established (plink). I had no idea and I couldn't find on the project site what 'p' stands for. A more appropriate and suggestive name for the project is this one given by upstream: snplink. I have a feeling that upstream will change the project name from plink to something more appropriate (like snplink) to avoid the confusion. >> Upstream documented the renaming on his website, so I think that that is the >> (happy) end of the story :) Yes, it is. :) > To summarise things up: the renaming of the executable of plink to > snplink renders the plink package inferior to a manual installation of > plink under the proper name. What I'll do now unless I hear some > objections that I am mentally prepared to follow: I'll prepare the new > version, add the conflict to debian/control to close 503367 (won't fix) > and herewith truly apologize for all these emails. That would be serious bug against 'plink' according to Debian policy. Read the whole thread starting at [1] or this specific message [2]. Thanks [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/10/msg00633.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/10/msg00644.html
