I agree that having this package renamed to "opendoas" could result in
fewer bug reports filled against the wrong upstream repo, but I also
think that OpenDoas currently offers a better experience for Linux
users. The persist feature is certainly nice, but (maybe more
importantly)
On 2021-11-28 10:08 a.m., Scupake wrote:
> I like the idea of giving slicer69/doas a diffrent name, I still haven't
> decided on a name yet so I'll work on renaming this package to "opendoas".
>
> Thanks a lot and sorry for the late reply.
>
Thanks for the update and for changing this package's
I like the idea of giving slicer69/doas a diffrent name, I still haven't
decided on a name yet so I'll work on renaming this package to "opendoas".
Thanks a lot and sorry for the late reply.
--
Scupake :D
4737A2C0A769B53AE82F77922BD8BE5CDD5ADA16
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Thanks very much for getting back to me and being open to discussing the
labelling for this Debian package.
> I considered naming this package "opendoas" but thought that users might
> not realize that that a version of doas is packaged under that name.
I can see why you'd take that approach.
Hello!
I considered naming this package "opendoas" but thought that users might
not realize that that a version of doas is packaged under that name.
I have also considered packaging Slicer69's doas but at the end decided
not to package it because it does not support the persist feature which
I
Package: doas
Version: 6.8
I believe the Debian package "doas" should be renamed to "opendoas". The
upstream project Debian packages is called "OpenDoas" [1] and it is a
competing port to another project called "doas" [2] that has similar
functionality. However, the two tools are not entirely
6 matches
Mail list logo
