Re: Binary name clash (ITP: lsh)
Petr Cech <cech@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> writes:
> IIRC it was already discused on -devel some time ago. Check the archives.
> And someone has probably ITP'ed it already, so check with him.
Christian Kurz ITPd lsh in autumn, but has given up because the name
clash was not easily resolved. It was discussed here without reaching
a consensus.
Perhaps minds have moved since then?
My summary of the past discussion:
* The existing lsh ("lish") is not very widly used, according to
popularity contest.
* Chances are that the new lsh ("secure-lsh") will get quite popular,
since it fits the needs of many people.
* Alienating the lish users is bad.
* Differing from other systems/upstream in the naming of the
secure-lsh client is bad.
IMO the main use for lish is as login-shell for Dos-heads, rather than
getting called in other ways (by #!/usr/bin/lsh-scripts or users). If
this assumption holds, a renaming of the binary could be handled
transparently to these users.
--
Robbe
Reply to: