Bug#441200: libconfig name clash

[Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>]

Julien Danjou writes ("libconfig name clash"):
> My arguments are the following: abz's libconfig is old, non used
> (no reverse-dependencies) and has only 40 installs according to popcon[2].
> Furthermore, it's packaged as a native Debian package and does not seems
> to be distributed anywhere. I don't see the point to have a "personnal"
> package which is not used apart from its Debian-maintainer-author in
> the archive, and blocking packaging of better and maintained software.

I tend to agree with these arguments.  (Although I haven't done any
significant research to check the facts.)

I also think that in both cases it is unfortunate that such a generic
name was chosen - but this is even more so in the case of a small
personal package.  Those minority-interest packages I have included in
my own contributions to Debian have names (for the packages and the
files included) which generally aim not to clash with future uses.

In summary, it was a mistake of the original author of the Debian
libconfig not to choose a better name.  It was also a mistake of the
authors of the new upstream libconfig not to choose a better name.

On balance, I would rather subject a Debian maintainer (who ought to
know better) to the consequences of their poor choice of name, than
try to swim upstream against a larger project.

I'm very tempted to suggest a judgement of Solomon: neither package to
use the name, since it is so poorly chosen.

Ian.