[Debian-med-packaging] Bug#503367: Again: Bug#503367: plink: file conflict with putty-tools
tillea at rki.de
Fri Apr 3 17:47:38 UTC 2009
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Steffen Moeller wrote:
> we should ask the technical committee to rule over it. And maybe this
> needs some voting in the end.
Who is this *we*? Do you volunteer?
IMHO plink should be renamed because it is way less popular than the
putty tool. So we will loose this voting anyway and there is much effort
for an foreseable outcome. IMHO the solution I described in README.Debian
is reasonable for plink users even with existing scripts.
> I personally think that we should not rename it. And putty's plink should not be renamed
> either. The two are in a technical conflict, though with little practical consequences. To
> me, this situation is preferable over the renaning of the binary of either.
This is a worse solution than a rename.
> Please keep in mind that we don't need to package everything. (sn)plink can just be
> removed from the archive. Or could it move to non-free since it does not adhere to
> Debian's principles? I need to reread the policy here.
Moving to non-free will not solve the problem and is just wrong
(because it is actually not non-free). Trying to solve a problem
by pretending wrong facts is a no go.
I'd strongly recommend to settle (together with upstream) for
a reasonable alternative name (I don't care whether it is
snplink, Plink, PLINK or something else) but we should find
a reasonable decision in a short time frame (to not spend to
power into an issue which does not bring anybody foreward).
More information about the Debian-med-packaging