Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
...
>
> * Declare that no-one is allowed the binary package name
> /usr/bin/dune other than the C++ library dune-common
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I suspect you meant 'dune' there.
BTW I agree (having followed the thread) that the consensus on
debian-devel was that the choice of name was pretty foolish.
Foolishness made less forgivable by the fact that the name change was
prompted by a previous clash, and the new name was very obviously also
going to clash with several easily discoverable software projects.
My opinion is that if any package gets to use /usr/bin/dune, it should
be one of the other ones: As you suggest, most probably the C++ library.
The same goes for the package name.
Stéphane,
That being the case, I would encourage you to come up with a better
justification than what I've seen so far[1]. The sooner you do this,
the more likely is is to have an influence on the outcome.
BTW This is just my opinion, and I'm not trying to swing the view of the
rest of the TC by stating it. However, I suspect that I'm not alone in
thinking this, so it seems OK to say so early rather than to insist on
trudging through the more usual processes and waste a lot of time.
Cheers, Phil.
[1] It seems the Upstream didn't like the idea of another name change.
Other than that I've not noticed a particular reason for the choice
of name beyond the association between camels and dunes, which seems
pretty weak to me. Feel free to point out if this is wrong.
--
|)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature