Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1231987 > unrolled thread

Bug#1059618: Please consider packaging ssh3 as soh

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#1059618: Please consider packaging ssh3 as soh Andrea Pappacoda <andrea@pappacoda.it> - 2025-02-06 13:30 +0100
    Bug#1059618: Please consider packaging ssh3 as soh Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2025-02-06 13:40 +0100
      Bug#1059618: Please consider packaging ssh3 as soh Andrea Pappacoda <andrea@pappacoda.it> - 2025-02-06 13:50 +0100

#1231987 — Bug#1059618: Please consider packaging ssh3 as soh

Hi Simon,

Could you please consider packaging "ssh3" as "soh"?

Upstream has already agreed to the rename, it just hasn't been done 
yet. You wouldn't even need to write the patch yourself, as a pull 
request performing the rename has been opened already at 
<https://github.com/francoismichel/ssh3/pull/96>.

I think having soh in Debian would be great.

Bye!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1231989

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi

I also think it would be nice to upload, but upstream didn’t really make a decision as far as I can tell.

https://github.com/francoismichel/ssh3/issues/79

Maybe you could explain to upstream that this would get packaged if they did the renaming and a new release?

Shipping it as “soh” if that isn’t where upstream is going seems potentially worse than just waiting a bit more to let upstream make some decision. If they already abandoned the project, maybe it doesn’t make sense to package it at all.

/Simon

> 6 feb. 2025 kl. 13:24 skrev Andrea Pappacoda <andrea@pappacoda.it>:
> 
> Hi Simon,
> 
> Could you please consider packaging "ssh3" as "soh"?
> 
> Upstream has already agreed to the rename, it just hasn't been done yet. You wouldn't even need to write the patch yourself, as a pull request performing the rename has been opened already at <https://github.com/francoismichel/ssh3/pull/96>.
> 
> I think having soh in Debian would be great.
> 
> Bye!
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1231990

Il giorno gio 6 feb 2025 alle 13:32:44 +01:00:00, Simon Josefsson 
<simon@josefsson.org> ha scritto:
> I also think it would be nice to upload, but upstream didn’t really 
> make a decision as far as I can tell.
> 
> https://github.com/francoismichel/ssh3/issues/79

Reading 
<https://github.com/francoismichel/ssh3/issues/79#issuecomment-1879004877>, 
I had the impression that the decision was made. But yeah, now that I 
re-read it I see that the upstream developer doesn't seem that 
convinced about the rename. He still recommended that name for 
packagers, though.

> Maybe you could explain to upstream that this would get packaged if 
> they did the renaming and a new release?

Makese sense. Doing it now.

> Shipping it as “soh” if that isn’t where upstream is going 
> seems potentially worse than just waiting a bit more to let upstream 
> make some decision.

True. I thought the decision was made, though.

> If they already abandoned the project, maybe it doesn’t make sense 
> to package it at all.

This is true as well :)

I'll try to leave a comment on the GitHub issue and see what happens. 
Bye!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web