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
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
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 05:57:37PM +0200, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
On 03/04/2009, at 19.04, Steffen Moeller wrote:
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
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
Hi,
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
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
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Brian May
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steffen Möller wrote:
Teodor happened to have nicely explained my objections to rename plink.
Except what he said is wrong, puttygen hasn't been renamed.
Yes, puttygen hasn't been renamed. It was a wrong assumption from me ..
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).
Hi all,
Upstream documented
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).
Steffen Möller schrieb am Dienstag, dem 28. Oktober 2008:
To summarise things up: the renaming of the executable of plink to
snplink renders the plink package inferior to a manual installation of
plink under the proper name. What I'll do now unless I hear some
objections that I am mentally
Hi Steffen!
Disclaimer: I'm a biologist [1] and I performed genome-wide analyses.
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:00:02 +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
Steffen Möller schrieb am Dienstag, dem 28. Oktober 2008:
To summarise things up: the renaming of the executable of plink to
snplink renders the plink
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Steffen Möller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Hello,
Teodor schrieb:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Steffen Möller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Steffen Möller wrote:
Except that snplink is taken by another program
This is a valid point and should probably be discussed with plink
(and snplink??) authors.
and Debian remains incompatible for scripts shared in the community.
This is not really a valid point. In
Hi there!
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:58:20 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Steffen Möller wrote:
Except that snplink is taken by another program
This is a valid point and should probably be discussed with plink
(and snplink??) authors.
FWIW both software have been published in
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Luca Capello wrote:
FWIW both software have been published in scientific papers, thus
changing one name or the other can be more difficult.
Yes - but it can be made public on their website.
However, while Steffen's point is valid, it's not problematic ATM, since
we
Le Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 02:48:21PM +0100, Steffen Möller a écrit :
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
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
I think that I would like the Debian Blend distributions (formerly called CDDs)
to manage this smartly in the future. We could have some mechanisms that make
sure that for biologists, plink relates to SNPs, not to SSH. But this is a long
term goal with
Hello,
plink has just made it to the archive.
Teodor happened to have nicely explained my objections to rename plink.
Dear Colin, if you don't mind too much, or if you could be bribed with a
few beers, please be so kind to rename the plink binary package.
Many thanks and best regards,
Steffen
Le Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:59:50AM +1100, Brian May a écrit :
If we rename plink in putty (I think that is what you are asking?), that
it going to make our version of putty inconsistent with every other
putty package out there. This program is often used by scripts, they
will break too.
Package: plink
Version: 1.03p1-1
Severity: serious
The /usr/bin/plink name is already taken:
,
| # aptitude install plink
| [...]
| Selecting previously deselected package plink.
| (Reading database ... 134796 files and directories currently installed.)
| Unpacking plink (from
Le Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 08:40:59AM +0200, Sven Joachim a écrit :
Package: plink
Version: 1.03p1-1
Severity: serious
The /usr/bin/plink name is already taken:
,
| # aptitude install plink
| [...]
| Selecting previously deselected package plink.
| (Reading database ... 134796 files
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since Plink is younger than Putty, I think that the burden of the
renaming is for us (the Debian Med packaging team). I plan to rename
/usr/bin/plink to /usr/bin/Plink, that would be a symbolic link to
Le Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 06:07:11PM +0300, Teodor a écrit :
IMO a simple Conflicts: putty-tools is enough. If they provide the
same functionality than an alternative is better than conflicting
with each other.
Hello Tedor,
thanks for the feedback, but this would be against our Policy, because
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 06:07:11PM +0300, Teodor a écrit :
IMO a simple Conflicts: putty-tools is enough. If they provide the
same functionality than an alternative is better than conflicting
with each other.
Hello
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Both programs are intended for command line, and could be used in
scripts. We may even find users who want to install both at the same
time. Very annoying…
Since Plink is younger than Putty, I think that the burden of
On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 20:18 +0300, Teodor wrote:
Since renaming seems to be the only solution, than IMO it is more
appropriate to rename 'plink' in putty-tools than in the plink
packages since this is exactly the source/binary package name.
[...]
This has been done already in putty-tools for
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 08:18:23PM +0300, Teodor wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Both programs are intended for command line, and could be used in
scripts. We may even find users who want to install both at the same
time. Very annoying…
34 matches
Mail list logo
