On Friday 26 March 2004 00.41, Number Six wrote:
> Proposal, additions to Policy and changes to dpkg:
>
> (1) Add to policy: all package names must be nongeneric [1].
And watch the endless discussions on what, exactly, is a generic name and what
is not. Discussing this has, imho, worked well so far.
>
> (2) Add to policy: all new binary names must be nongeneric.
> Historical generic names ("file", &c.) are grandfathered in.
> Where possible, upstream packages should be patched to create
> nongeneric binaries (e.g., "imagemagick-display",
> "gnustep-viewpdf").
Even worse. So people coming from RedHat, SuSE, whatever suddenly find don't
find their programs anymore? I vote for staying with patching upstream as
little as possible.
If there's two packages installing binaries with the same name, and they are
not replacements for each other, I guess that's a problem upstream should be
made aware of, too, so I see manual conflict resolution here as a good thing.
IMHO this is not a problem in Debian currently. Yes, it comes up every now and
then, but my impression so far is that developers (DD and upstream) have so
far been able to work together on this sort of problem.
cheers
-- vbi
--
Excuse me for butting in, but I'm interrupt-driven.
Attachment:
pgp6IBCZbBD8y.pgp
Description: signature