Re: Renaming lsh?
In article <[🔎] nn3duz9rxz.fsf@sanna.lysator.liu.se> you write:
>"Darren O. Benham" <gecko@debian.org> writes:
>
>> Take two users, Person A and Person B. Person A has chosen the dos like
>> lsh shell as his prefered shell, he's used for years and he's getting ready
>> to customize a debian box for his use.
>>
>> Take Person B. He's never even heard of the lsh shell (I hadn't until this
>> topic came up a week ago) but he *has* heard of the ssh free replacement
>> lsh and want's to give it a try...
>>
>> Both people do "apt-get install lsh".. what happens? Either Person A or
>> Person B will be surprised...
More importantly:
Person A has always used the lsh shell. He has used it for years and
years. Of course, he has already installed it on his slink system.
Person A decides to upgrade to potato, with apt-get dist-upgrade.
What happened? The lsh shell disappeared? The package "lsh" is still
installed (although the description looks completely wrong), but can no
longer be used. (Note: I am assuming the the filename conflict has been
taken care of).
Of course, it should be obvious that new lsh (ssh clone) package upgraded
and replaced the old lsh (shell) package.
>You should not install software like that, unless you happen to like
>surprises. You should first browse the descriptions of the packages
>that seem relevant (e.g. the packages matching *lsh*). Or if you're
>lazy, do something like
Agreed. However, this doesn't help upgrades.
--
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>
Reply to: