Plink2 (Was: Bug#771154: plink: New major upstream version of plink)
- To: 771154@bugs.debian.org, Debian Med Project List <debian-med@lists.debian.org>
- Subject: Plink2 (Was: Bug#771154: plink: New major upstream version of plink)
- From: Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 10:51:12 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20141222095112.GD17460@an3as.eu>
- In-reply-to: <CA+6XHwR2OsU-B169vNN5ur2jLkuZpNCWNBhdTzWgCqGQJ8q7yQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <trinity-d09898e8-7ac2-43d7-93be-c160915ee051-1419240142631@msvc011> <CA+6XHwR2OsU-B169vNN5ur2jLkuZpNCWNBhdTzWgCqGQJ8q7yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:45:12AM +0100, Dylan wrote:
> Hi Steffen,
>
> 2014-12-22 10:22 GMT+01:00 "Steffen Möller" <steffen_moeller@gmx.de>:
>
> > Much in support of Dylan, please also think about the binary filename of
> > the executable. We had the unfortunate p-link for Version 1 to avoid a
> > clash with one of the putty tools. This was a mistake at the time imho.
> > Shall we correct for that? Or is upstream already defaulting to plink2?
> > This would then give us p-link and plink2 as executables. Hurts.
> >
>
>
> The upstream devs always name the new binary "plink" but they recommend to
> rename it to "plink2" and the old plink to "plink1" to avoid the name
> conflict. So, I rename the binary plink2 for the new version and maybe we
> can also rename the first plink from "p-link" to "plink1" with a symbolic
> link to "p-link" to avoid problem for our users which already use the name
> "p-link". What do you think?
Sounds good.
In addition I would recommend to teach upstream again about the name
clash with putty tools.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: