Re: OpenSSH uploaded replacing ssh, please test

[Owen Dunn <owend@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

In article <87g0yob6u3.fsf@sheikh.hands.com> you write:
>I've just uploaded OpenSSH, the binary package for which I've called
>``ssh'' so it will replace the non-free version in due course.
>
>I've also uploaded the old ssh, which is now called ssh-nonfree.

It strikes me that changing the package names is a bad idea, likely to
randomly break things under users' feet and generally cause confusion.
Why cause confusion by having `ssh' versions before 1.2.<whatever> be
one thing and versions after <whatever-else> be another, when we have
mechanisms to do this properly?

(e.g. openssh replaces ssh, or arrange things with alternatives so that
both can coexist)

(S)