Re: Name clash lsh
Why not call it lish(LImited SHell)?
Dave Bristel
On 22 Oct 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> Date: 22 Oct 1999 21:40:34 GMT
> From: Roland Rosenfeld <roland@spinnaker.de>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Name clash lsh
> Newsgroups: mailinglist.debian.devel
> Resent-Date: 22 Oct 1999 22:09:46 -0000
> Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
>
> 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/ *
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: