On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 12:40:48AM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 08:27:51PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > To give a brief history, Debian had "getmail" which was based on > > Python2 and was removed. Then there was a fork available named > > "getmail6" which was based on Python3. A transitional package linked > > them by #979060. > > > > Now, the upstream of "getmail" has raised a bug in Debian asking > > "getmail6" to be removed or renamed and he claims that users of > > getmail6 are imposing a support burden on him as users are thinking it > > to be getmail and mailing the getmail mailing list. #996569 > > > > I went through the getmail mailing list archive and could find only > > one such mail. I am not sure what to reply to him, and need your > > suggestions about what to do now please. > Debian is a wrong place to do this. > And if not for the trademark violation claims I'd suggest ignoring this. > But the claims should be directed to the upstream first. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=996569 IS opened by the upstream author. In https://marc.info/?l=getmail&m=163440038426857&w=2 is Charles Cazabon, upstream author, expressing that the poorly named fork of getmail should get a name without the string 'getmail'. In thread https://marc.info/?t=163411972300003&r=1&w=2 you find also the author of the fork, Roland Puntaier. Back to the core of the bugreport, getmail vs getmail6. <opinion> getmail6 was a good idea. time did learn us it was too optimistic. </opinion> <problem> the name getmail6 </problem> Solution would be a different name. When no one comes with a different name, is removal of getmail6 from the Debian archive the next best thing. Groeten Geert Stappers DD -- Silence is hard to parse
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature