On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Brian May
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steffen Möller wrote:
>> Teodor happened to have nicely explained my objections to rename plink.
>
> Except what he said is wrong, puttygen hasn't been renamed.
Yes, puttygen hasn't been renamed. It was a wrong assumption from
Hello,
plink has just made it to the archive.
Teodor happened to have nicely explained my objections to rename plink.
Dear Colin, if you don't mind too much, or if you could be bribed with a
few beers, please be so kind to rename the plink binary package.
Many thanks and best regards,
Steffen
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 08:18:23PM +0300, Teodor wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Both programs are intended for command line, and could be used in
> > scripts. We may even find users who want to install both at the same
> > time. Very annoyin
On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 20:18 +0300, Teodor wrote:
> Since renaming seems to be the only solution, than IMO it is more
> appropriate to rename 'plink' in putty-tools than in the plink
> packages since this is exactly the source/binary package name.
[...]
> This has been done already in putty-tools fo
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Both programs are intended for command line, and could be used in
> scripts. We may even find users who want to install both at the same
> time. Very annoying…
>
> Since Plink is younger than Putty, I think that the burde
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, if the functionality is different, it should be possible to install
> and use both at the same time.
Yes, this seems to be the rationale for this restriction in the policy.
Thanks
Teodor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Le Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 06:07:11PM +0300, Teodor a écrit :
>>> IMO a simple "Conflicts: putty-tools" is enough. If they provide the
>>> same functionality than an "alternative" is bett
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 06:07:11PM +0300, Teodor a écrit :
>> IMO a simple "Conflicts: putty-tools" is enough. If they provide the
>> same functionality than an "alternative" is better than conflicting
>> with each other.
Le Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 06:07:11PM +0300, Teodor a écrit :
> IMO a simple "Conflicts: putty-tools" is enough. If they provide the
> same functionality than an "alternative" is better than conflicting
> with each other.
Hello Tedor,
thanks for the feedback, but this would be against our Policy, be
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since Plink is younger than Putty, I think that the burden of the
> renaming is for us (the Debian Med packaging team). I plan to rename
> /usr/bin/plink to /usr/bin/Plink, that would be a symbolic link to
> /usr/lib/plin
Le Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 08:40:59AM +0200, Sven Joachim a écrit :
> Package: plink
> Version: 1.03p1-1
> Severity: serious
>
> The /usr/bin/plink name is already taken:
>
> ,
> | # aptitude install plink
> | [...]
> | Selecting previously deselected package plink.
> | (Reading database ... 134
11 matches
Mail list logo
