Re: Intend to orphan pscan.
Le Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 04:41:17PM +0100, Jon Dowland a écrit :
>
> Renaming a binary is a diversion from upstream, which we
> want to minimize, in almost all cases. So, it seems that the
> best approach is to contain the "damage" to the emboss
> package.
Hi,
In summary, here is what I will do.
- For the conflict with the cons package, I agreed with the maintainer
that I will rename the binary in /usr/bin and provide it under its
real name under /usr/lib/emboss.
- For the pscan package, the situation is almost the same, although the
only feedback from the maintainer I had is that he is still
maintaining his package. The policy says that unless there is an
agreement we both have to rename our packages, but I will not play
stupid and not require him to do so.
- For the hsffig package, it is orphaned, so it has no maintainer. I am
quite reluctant to rename the conflicting binary of emboss in that
case. As you said, the "damage" is better confined in one package, but
I think that it would be unfair that when nobody cares for a package
A, the damage is to be done to package B.
Not taking into account the fact that hsffig FTBFS and considered for
removal, shall I prepare a NMU and submit it to a sponsor ?
Lastly, about helper scripts, I was wondering about the following
solution : binaries could be renamed in all packages and a script could
be installed instead. If only one package is installed, it would call
the binary of this package, and maybe give a warning. If both packages
are installed, it would give an error. This would solve nicely the
problem in the case of packages which are unlikely to be installed
together.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
http://charles.plessy.org
Wako, Saitama, Japan
Reply to: