Re: Bug#394705: ITP: emma -- extendable MySQL managing assistant
Le Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 02:40:16AM +0200, Piotr Ozarowski a écrit :
> Charles Plessy wrote:
> > I am preparing a package for a software suite called EMBOSS, and one
> > of
> > its binaries is called emma. Is the Emma you are packaging also
> > containing a "emma" binary ?
> Yes, my package has only one file in /usr/bin - "emma".
> I wanted to search for sponsor today, but I will delay it so we can
> work on
> consensus here...
> Are other binaries depending on "emma" name in your package?
Not "depending". However, EMBOSS is a set of command line tools in the
unix spirit. Its users would be quite disturbed if emma had to be
renamed. Also, I guess that it would break scripts.
So let us list the possibilities :
a) One of the packages gives up emma to the other. I explained my
reasons why I would prefer not giving up the name, but I understand that
if you estimate that you also have good ones, we will have to find
b) EMBOSS and Emma packages rename the binary to emma-align and
emma-assistant respectively (for instance). This is what policy 10.1
requires when there is no consensus.
c) The packages rename the binaries, and we find a way to ship a script
as /usr/bin/emma which tells the user to read
/usr/share/doc/emboss|emma/README.Debian. Or to read a emma.1 manpage
wich explains how to deal with this issue (such as having a symlink to
/usr/bin/emma-relevant in $HOME/bin). Using dpkg-divert could be a way
to ship this script in both packages.
As the policy does not recommend anything like c), I am wondering if it
is a good idea. I welcome any comment on this.
Have a nice day,
Wako, Saitama, Japan