| Based on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38664729
I would say that others have come to the same conclusion. Even the post title literally says it's not really "SSHv3" but rather SSHv2 using a different transport mechanism.
A package name that reflects THAT might be appropriate - like 'golang-ssh2-tunnel' or some such thing (long but descriptive package names don't bother me) - but I absolutely agree that calling it "ssh3" is misleading and inappropriate.
--J On Dec 30, 2023, at 13:31, Jonathan Kamens <jik@kamens.us> wrote:
I think even "ssh-h3" is a confusing and frankly impudent name. The creator of this new package appears to be intentionally trying to use the ubiquity of the ssh "brand" to their benefit. This brand confusion can only harm end users and I do not think Debian should facilitate it.
Even something as simple as naming it h3sh would have avoided the brand confusion while communicating the purpose of the package. This does not appear to be a case of "unknowing infringement." It appears to be intentional.
Regardless of whether or not that's so, it is harmful and should be fixed.
Jik On December 30, 2023 2:02:56 PM EST, Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org> wrote:
* Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> [231230 11:54]:
One alternative that was suggested was to call the package something
else in Debian. 'golang-ssh3'? 'go-ssh3'? Still somewhat problematic
as long as the 'ssh3' name is in there.
There is no reason the package (source and binary) can't be named ssh-h3
even if the binary is not renamed. I would not keep the "ssh3" part in
the package name.
...Marvin
--
Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and autocorrect errors.
|