[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

ssh mutation

My apologies for the following rant...

Just for the record, I'd like to say that I think it was a bad idea 
renaming ssh to ssh-nonfree, so that openssh could hijack an existing
package name.  Basically it comes down to this... openssh supports
fewer algorithms than ssh-nonfree (and yes, I understand the reasons
for this), and potentially requires that a new hostkey be created (and
then distributed to all relevant systems).  In other words, it's
(potentially) not a drop-in replacement for the prior ssh package.

Since the decision has apparently already been made, I hope this will
at least be announced very prominently (not to mention loudly).  Let's
just say that I suspect anyone who upgrades to potato (once it
officially becomes `stable'), and `accidently' discovers that ssh
suddenly does not support their hostkeys, will probably be somewhat
irritated... and in my opinion, this would be quite justified.

By way of clarification... I do typically support free solutions over
non-free ones, and I believe the shift to openssh to be a good thing. 
The part I dislike is specifically taking over an existing package
name, so that an `upgrade' installs a completely different package with
differences in behavior.  They may have shared the same codebase at
one time, but they aren't interchangeable in the present.

Reply to: