Re: Intend to orphan pscan.
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Dear debian-devel,
> I am maintaining a package that shares binary names with three others,
> cons, hsffig and pscan. I contacted their developpers in private,
> via debian-devel, and then through the BTS. I got an answer from the
> maintainer of cons, but the maintainers of hsffig and pscan, although
> active, have opted out answering.
You introduce a new package which ships files that conflict with existing
packages... I don't see any good reason why you should decide to break the
other packages without any good reason in the first place.
> In the meantime, hsffig has been orphaned by others, and its removal is
> currently discussed.
> I would like to know if it is OK that I orphan pscan and open a
> discussion about its removal.
I don't see a reason to orphan a package from an active maintainer unless that
Now to the core:
A package cons that ships /usr/bin/cons and a package pscan that ships
/usr/bin/pscan makes sense and these binaries and project names exist for a
long time. Why do you think a rename of the files /usr/bin/cons and
/usr/bin/pscan in emboss is out of the question?