Re: Again: Bug#503367: plink: file conflict with putty-tools
Hi, I try to resume the thread about the name of plink binary in Debian to finally find a solution. Status: 1. we can not use /usr/bin/plink because of the name conflict with the putty tool 2. plink executable will be moved to /usr/lib/plink/plink 3. we use a symlink to this place under /usr/bin/NEWNAME 4. the issue will be documented in README.Debian, NEWS.Debian and the long description of the package. The remaining issue to decide about is the actual name to choose. Here re the options: 1. snplink Pro: Just announced by upstream as alternate name used by Debian (which is not true because the suggestion was never realised) and used by Gentoo (because of this announcement) Con: Another potential name conflict [1] 2. PLINK Pro: Sound remains the same. Con: Not portable to files systems which are not case sensitive 3. Plink Same pros/cons as 2. 4. p_link 5. p-link I'd really love if we can find a solution together with upstream (in CC) and I'd actually would wight upstreams opinion about this issue highest according to the principle that it is not only a Debian issue but might happen on any users machine who tries to install plink. So please let us find a reasonable solution which lets us move foreward to a policy compliant plink package inside Debian. Kind regards Andreas. [1] http://www.icr.ac.uk/research/research_sections/cancer_genetics/cancer_genetics_teams/molecular_and_population_genetics/software_and_databases/index.shtml -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Again: Bug#503367: plink: file conflict with putty-tools
Andreas Tille wrote: 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? :) no, since I personally see no preferable alternative to the current conflicting state. 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. Morten's suggestion of a rename to purcell_plink (or plink_purcell) seems reasonable to me. snplink I find strange and as it was mentioned in the initial thread, there an earlier program with that name. 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. In your view, I know. 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 si 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 know what you mean. 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). If _I_ was upstream, with a program that has such a strong name in the community, I would not change it lightheartedly. PLINK would certainly remain PLINK, the only chance I'd see is that upstream leaves the name PLINK for its software and renames the binary alone and then towards something that is very similar to the old one, maybe p_link or so. But this should possibly be synced with a general API overhaul or so. The conflict in my view is a problem of Debian or of UNIX in general, not of either of the two plinks. We should have namespaces of some sort and not everything in one directory. Best, Steffen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Again: Bug#503367: plink: file conflict with putty-tools
Hello, Daniel Leidert wrote: Andreas Tille wrote: in October last year there was a longish discussion about name space pollution regarding plink. If you like to spend some time you should read the complete log of #503367 [1]. I decided to put an end now on this issue to make sure it will not remain as is for ever and renamed the entry in /usr/bin. This is explained in README.Debian of this package (see svn[2]). we should ask the technical committee to rule over it. And maybe this needs some voting in the end. 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. 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. Best regards, Steffen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Again: Bug#503367: plink: file conflict with putty-tools
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). Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Again: Bug#503367: plink: file conflict with putty-tools
Andreas Tille wrote: in October last year there was a longish discussion about name space pollution regarding plink. If you like to spend some time you should read the complete log of #503367 [1]. I decided to put an end now on this issue to make sure it will not remain as is for ever and renamed the entry in /usr/bin. This is explained in README.Debian of this package (see svn[2]). Two questions are left on my side: 1. On the one hand plink upstream claimed on their website[3] that Debian *has* renamed plink to snplink (which is not really true because the discussion ended without any real action). But Gentoo went the same road to follow Debian. So there is one established way which is accepted upstream to handle this problem. On the other hand there is this other biological project which has a snplink as well.[4] While chances are not really high that this software will also be packaged - you can not know. What about using /usr/bin/PLINK? I can't find a requirement in the policy to use lowercase characters for a binary/script. Maybe I missed it? So what is better: Just seeking for another name which hopefully is singular and asking upstream as well as Gentoo to change as well or live with the small risk to run the same circle of name space pollution in case the other snplink will be packaged? 2. Is the information that plink was renamed to snplink visible enough or should I rather use a debconf note to make users really aware what they have to do? Well, a NEWS entry is mandatory in this situation. I would further suggest to put this information into the package description too and of course leave an entry in README.Debian. Regards, Daniel -- Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger01 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Again: Bug#503367: plink: file conflict with putty-tools
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Daniel Leidert wrote: Two questions are left on my side: 1. On the one hand plink upstream claimed on their website[3] that Debian *has* renamed plink to snplink (which is not really true because the discussion ended without any real action). But Gentoo went the same road to follow Debian. So there is one established way which is accepted upstream to handle this problem. On the other hand there is this other biological project which has a snplink as well.[4] While chances are not really high that this software will also be packaged - you can not know. What about using /usr/bin/PLINK? I can't find a requirement in the policy to use lowercase characters for a binary/script. Maybe I missed it? A Plink was discussed and refused [1] and finally *any* rename has the same problem - it breaks existing scripts. I personally would not have a problem to use any case variation. Well, a NEWS entry is mandatory in this situation. I would further suggest to put this information into the package description too and of course leave an entry in README.Debian. I'll do so. Thanks Andreas. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/10/msg00642.html -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Again: Bug#503367: plink: file conflict with putty-tools
Andreas Tille wrote: On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Daniel Leidert wrote: [..] What about using /usr/bin/PLINK? I can't find a requirement in the policy to use lowercase characters for a binary/script. Maybe I missed it? A Plink was discussed and refused [1] IMO just changing one character is not good. But the renaming it to PLINK - how the whole project is called, seems sufficient to me. Further the article you linked contains just a user opinion and states no annoying and ugly - maybe this should have been not or so - I don't know. But it's just a user opinion, not a TC decision or recommendation. and finally *any* rename has the same problem - it breaks existing scripts. That's true. But I could imagine, that a rename from bin/plink to bin/PLINK gets more support from upstream and maybe upstream then is willing to implement this on the upstream side (use PLINK instead of plink and make plink a symbolic link (or a copy at Windows) for backwards compatibility). E.g. the html-xml-utils author also changed *several* binary names because of conflicts with existing tools on request (he simply made a new major release 5 with the new names). PLINKs upstream can't ignore the conflict. putty is not a program you cannot expect in scientific pools. I would say: there is a good chance, that you'll find putty in e.g. university PC pools especially in those, also providing Windows as os. Regards, Daniel -- Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger01 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Again: Bug#503367: plink: file conflict with putty-tools
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 10:23 +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote: What about using /usr/bin/PLINK? please god no. try to find a name that removes confusion, not one that is ugly but still as generic. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Again: Bug#503367: plink: file conflict with putty-tools
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Daniel Leidert daniel.leidert.s...@gmx.net wrote: What about using /usr/bin/PLINK? Please don't. I have already had enough problems with MacOS, Windows, and some other operating systems and filesystems which are not case sensitive. -- Juan Cespedes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Again: Bug#503367: plink: file conflict with putty-tools
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:51:39 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
This is explained in README.Debian of this package (see svn[2]).
[..]
2. Is the information that plink was renamed to snplink visible
enough or should I rather use a debconf note to make users really
aware what they have to do?
NEWS.Debian might be a good compromise between README.Debian and a
debconf message.
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. Home: http://info.comodo.priv.at/{,blog/} / GPG Key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, developer - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/
`-NP: U2: Elvis Prestley And America
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
