Re: Name clash lsh
Christian Kurz <shorty@debian.org> wrote:
> I'm still intersted in packaging lsh, the free secure shell for
> Debian, but I need still a solution for the name clash. So if we
> don't find one soon, I will remove my ITP and somebody else can take
> it over. I asked on irc and on this list and nobody stepped up and
> suggested a good solution. And I send a mail to the maintainer of
> lsh, the baby shell, about this issue, but got no reply until today.
I think (and hope) that the ssh replacement named lsh will become much
more common than the "Limited Shell" ever was. So I think, that it is
a good idea to name the ssh replacement lsh. This implies, that the
"Limited Shell" has to be renamed, for example to "losh", because the
man page tells us:
lsh : A Limited Shell (pronounced 'losh')
I don't think that too many users already use lsh, which seems to be
true, as the popularity contest tells us:
Package Vote Old Recent Unknown
lsh 2 17 5 0
So this renaming of lsh seems to be acceptable for me. But the lsh
maintainer should cope with you in this and we have to find a way for
smooth renaming from lsh to losh. /usr/bin/lsh is added to
/etc/shells by its postinst, so the can be users with /usr/bin/lsh as
their login shell, which has to be changed and /etc/shells has also to
be changed.
At the moment I don't see how we can automate the renaming from lsh to
losh in the package management. Someone who is using lsh at the moment
won't like the idea that this is replaced by the ssh replacement
without automatically installing the new version of the limited shell.
What about the following idea:
- Rename the Limited Shell binary to losh or lish (for LImited SHell)
- Name the ssh replacement package secure-lsh
- Let secure-lsh conflict with all versions of the lsh package where
the binary/manpage is named lsh
- Name the secure-lsh binary lsh.
In addition to the above The Limited Shell package can also be renamed
to losh or lish or mgw-lsh (that name is used in /usr/doc/lsh/NEWS.gz)
which allows us in potato+1 or better potato+2 to rename the
secure-lsh package to lsh.
I know, all this is very ugly (why did the author of the secure lsh
use such a common name?), but if lsh becomes a real ssh replacement
some time, I would really prefer at least the lsh binary to be named
lsh to be compatible with other systems (which is needed when we want
to use lsh like rsh/ssh for example in combination with CVS,
rsync,...).
Tschoeeee
Roland
--
* roland@spinnaker.de * http://www.spinnaker.de/ *
Reply to: