Re: Bug#441200: libconfig name clash
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Bug#441200: libconfig name clash"):
> I can't see any record of anyone suggesting [libconfig1] though, and
> I'd really hope that it wouldn't be accepted at NEW.
See #438683 where otherwise sensible people are suggesting using the
name libconfig1 for the new library due to the TC's inactivity.
> Abraham, Julien, do you have sensible alternative names for your packages
> (eg, incorporating the existing libconfig into the libabz package,
> or renaming the new libconfig package to libconfig-hyperrealm)? If so,
> what are they?
I think we need to decide this issue without allowing ourselves to be
diverted into protracted negotiations with the maintainers.
> > One option would be for the TC to explicitly ask the ftpmasters to be
> > especially fussy with the replacement names. For example:
> > N. The Committee asks the ftpmasters, when they process the
> > resulting packages from either maintainer through NEW, to ensure
> > that the new names are clear, descriptive, and unlikely to cause
> > further clashes.
>
> I would have thought this was already the case for _all_ packages, and
> that libdebug and libconfig being accepted in the first place under those
> names was a mistake. It's a bit long ago to really review now though.
Yes, it is too late to go back and understand how this mistake was
made. I just want to make sure that the problem actually gets solved
- ie, that the same mistake is not made again. Since we know that
this mistake can be made, I think we should take steps which are
likely to prevent it.
Can I persuade you about that clause ?
> > > (4) The proposed libconfig should be called libconfig-hyperrealm or
> > > similar to distinguish it from other libconfigs.
> > I agree with this. How do you think we should word this part of our
> > decision to make it clear what we mean ? See above.
>
> If we have to choose a name (and can't rely on NEW processing or the
> maintainers to work how they're supposed to), I'm inclined to think we
> should just pick some ourselves.
I would be happy with us simply issuing advice to the ftpmasters for
their NEW processing. Would you be happy with such a clause ?
I see that you think it's unnecessary but the art of politics is
compromise. If you don't think it's harmful and I think it's
necessary, are you willing to see it included ?
Picking names ourselves is going to make us deeply unpopular (rightly
so IMO) and get us well bogged down in bikeshedding.
Ian.
Reply to: