On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:41:05AM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > I just sponsored the ninja-build package. I realize now that I may > have missed one point: does it need to conflict with package ninja ? > ninja-build will provide usr/bin/ninja, while ninja provides > usr/sbin/ninja. > > The policy requires a Conflicts only when two packages provide the > same file [1]. It is implicitly assumed that file means full path to > file IMHO. However for filename in PATH, this might be an issue. While, as Arno mentioned, you are not allowed to use that name, this is a case where it would be good to ask the maintainer of "ninja" the root process logger to migrate his executable to something else. As a "make" replacement, "ninja"[-build] is something one runs from the command line tens or hundreds of times a day. The other ninja is a daemon that's never run interactively, and its executable is referenced only from an init script. One such case in the past was "git" vs "gnuit" -- and there, the other tool is something interactive, with 1367 popcon score. "ninja" has mere 39 installs. -- Copyright and patents were never about promoting culture and innovations; from the very start they were legalized bribes to give the king some income and to let businesses get rid of competition. For some history, please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature