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 <j...@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 <m...@renich.org> wrote: >> * Simon Josefsson <si...@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.
