I'm not anyone "important," but I'd like to suggest you just rename the conflicting packages now. It's quite possible that at least part of the reason it's languishing in the NEW queue is because every time an ftp-master looks at it, they think "Oh right, this mess." They can't find a firm reason to reject it, but they can't find a firm reason to say it's okay either. So it just sits. I suspect that the "objective reality" here is that there's no actual Policy statement against this, but the tools aren't setup to handle it either. In the past, I've looked for a Policy statement to try to resolve this either way, but I wasn't able to find one. But even if it's not prohibited explicitly, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. ZFS on Linux is complicated enough without needing to worry about corner cases in Debian tools. zol-zfsutils or linux-zfsutils or something should be fine. Adding "Provides: zfsutils" might be wise as well. Then, ideally, the FreeBSD side could rename theirs too, and add the same Provides. If at some point in the future, they share a codebase, then (and only then) the packages can be merged. -- Richard
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part