Re: [Debian-med-packaging] Bug#503367: Bug#503367: Bug#503367: plink: file conflict with putty-tools
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Steffen Möller <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Charles Plessy schrieb:
>>> Le Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:32:42AM +0200, Teodor a écrit :
>>>> I still believe it is best to rename 'plink' to 'puttylink' in
>>>> putty-tools binary package. Anyway, this should be fixed for squeeze
>>>> since in lenny there is no conflict (plink is not included in lenny).
> That was based on the assumption that the project name is well
> established (plink). I had no idea and I couldn't find on the project
> site what 'p' stands for. A more appropriate and suggestive name for
> the project is this one given by upstream: snplink.
> I have a feeling that upstream will change the project name from plink
> to something more appropriate (like snplink) to avoid the confusion.
>>> Upstream documented the renaming on his website, so I think that that is the
>>> (happy) end of the story :)
> Yes, it is. :)
Except that snplink is taken by another program and Debian remains
incompatible for scripts shared in the community. Even if we find
another name, then it seems likely that another later program would have
that name, just having been checked against the real project names. The
iceweasel-icedove solution has the same problem, in principle.
>> ...(won't fix)...
> That would be serious bug against 'plink' according to Debian policy.
> Read the whole thread starting at  or this specific message .
>  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/10/msg00633.html
>  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/10/msg00644.html
I need to thank all your friendly, constructive and informative replies.
As stated before I agree that that putty-tools's plink should not be
renamed (for the same reasons as plink's plink should not be renamed),
and I have now reread and understood what the policy says and following
these lines I share your conclusion that it should be plink's plink that
should be renamed. However, I still think that albeit adhering to the
Debian policy, the decision is inpractical and hence wrong. I personally
see four alternatives:
a) removing the newly package plink from the archive
b) add an exception to Debian policy for the case that the two packages
in name-conflict are not in the base distribution and the two
maintainers agree that the conflict in names does not matter enough to
c) add an exception to Debian policy when the two packages are of
different priorities and both are out of base, having optional beating
extra and the two maintainers agree.
d) have the binary install below /usr/lib rather than /usr/bin and
there is some mechanism to set the path right, which should be executed
prior to the execution of any script that is executing plink.
I personally am happy with any of the four alternatives but obviously
would best like b) or c). With an increasing number of applications in
Debian I am certain that b) or c) will be needed sooner or later, but d)
may be another interesting option for many. What do you think?