Re: ssh mutation
On Sat, 6 Nov 1999, Gregory T. Norris wrote:
> 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.
Agreed. I don't see why this course of action, causing many
surprised users and possible problems/incompatibilities was chosen, versus
the alternative, a new name causing no problems at all.
A plea for sanity here, there are still 15 hours to switch it back
before the freeze and save a lot of users, who are waiting for potato to
become stable, potential grief when they update dists.
Chris Pimlott (IANADD)
Reply to: