Re: Bug#711811: ITP: foreman -- manage Procfile-based applications
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Joerg Jaspert <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 13249 March 1977, Per Andersson wrote:
>>> There's a more popular/more complicated piece of software called Foreman,
>>> for which there's an RFP already, as well as a component of that,
>>> foremancli, already in Debian. Upstream provides a package too, although you
>>> could argue it isn't our problem if there's a naming conflict.
>> I saw this but decided to ignore it for now since there hasn't been any activity
>> with Foreman in over a year. If the name conflict arise in Debian it is a pretty
>> small matter to change it then I think. I.e. Foreman renaming to
>> theforeman as
>> the upstream web page or this foreman renaming to ruby-foreman or some such,
>> it is not a big thing IMHO.
> In Debian its actually a pretty big matter. The more so the longer the
> wrongly named package exists in Debian. So it is *much* preferred to not
> have it at all, if the conflict is known from the beginning.
I came to the same conclusion myself.
I asked ftpmasters to reject the uploaded foreman from NEW, which they did.
Package is since renamed to ruby-foreman (as can be seen in the bug title),
although not uploaded yet.