Re: OpenSSH uploaded replacing ssh, please test
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 12:02:11PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 01:52:58PM -0500, Mike Markley wrote:
> > Replacing regular ol' non-free ssh is all fine and dandy with me, but it
> > seems to me that a better approach would be to name the sucker openssh and
> > have it provide/replace/conflict with just plain old "ssh". Fewer
> > surprises when it comes time for an apt-get upgrade. Just my $0.02...
>
> I agree.
<AOL>
me too
</AOL>
openssh isn't exactly ssh, so the package shouldn't be called "ssh".
in any case, the name "openssh" is better. it highlights what is better
about the new package over the old one, and also highlights the fact
that there is a free and a non-free version of ssh.
someone else suggested that the current ssh should be renamed to
"fsecure-ssh".
that's not a bad idea. then we could have "openssh" and "fsecure-ssh"
packages, each Providing "ssh-server" and "ssh-client", with the current
ssh package replaced with one that "Depends: ssh-server, ssh-client".
this would at least allow (require) users to make a choice when they run
dselect.
this brings up two questions:
1. can a package Provide: more than one virtual package?
2. is it a good idea to split ssh in ssh-client and ssh-server? (we now
have rsh-client and rsh-server, which *IS* a good idea - it's useful to
have the rsh client installed without having the server installed)
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: