Re: Binaries with the same name
Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> David Paleino <email@example.com> writes:
> > Frank Küster <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> /--- Policy 10.1
> >> | Two different packages must not install programs with different
> >> | functionality but with the same filenames. (The case of two
> >> | programs having the same functionality but different
> >> | implementations is handled via "alternatives" or the
> >> | "Conflicts" mechanism.
> >> \---
> > Both programs provide the same basic functionality indeed (i.e.
> > translations), and the implementation is different. Why not using
> > alternatives|Conflicts then? (read as: I can't understand your
> > Policy citation, since it seems you're contradicting yourself).
> I've always read functionality in this context as meaning the API,
> not the general task the program does.
Agreed, but I can certainly see how that confusion arises from the
policy text as it is.
Perhaps a bug report against policy to specify "API" instead of
\ “Know what I hate most? Rhetorical questions.” —Henry N. Camp |