Re: RFC: Policy 10.1 and appropriateness of package conflicts

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: RFC: Policy 10.1 and appropriateness of package conflicts"):
> wouter@celtic:~$ ls -l /usr/bin/gcc
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 jun  6 07:23 /usr/bin/gcc -> gcc-4.4
> wouter@celtic:~$ dpkg -S /usr/bin/gcc
> gcc: /usr/bin/gcc
> wouter@celtic:~$ dpkg -S /usr/bin/gcc-4.1
> gcc-4.1: /usr/bin/gcc-4.1
> 
> How is that any different?

The name "gcc" isn't namespace pollution.  The package which provides
the name gcc is also a stably-named metapackage so has another reason
for existing.  I don't think this is the case with fsl.

Ian.