[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#753704: ITP: amap -- Next-generation scanning tool for pentesters

> Il Domenica 6 Luglio 2014 15:51, Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> ha scritto:
> > Le Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 10:33:35AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
>>  On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 04:37:16PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
>>  > > 
>>  > > This violates the Policy's section 10.1, but it is still my 
> favorite solution
>>  > > for the reason that you explained above.
>>  > 
>>  > I don't agree, packages should not be in conflict when it can be 
> easily avoided
>>  > by renaming files.
>>  +1
> Hi Andreas,
> Feel free to rename yourself, but do not forget to remove me from the uploaders
> list.
> On my side I find these renamings harmful and illogical.  The probability that
> people want to use both amaps on the same machine is close to zero, and the
> probability that users of both amaps will be annoyed by the rename is close to
> one.  I think that these renamings are applied dogmatically in a way that makes
> Debian inferior.  I do not want to participate to this.

Hi Charles,

I really don't think there is any reason to rename your package.
I renamed my amap into amap-thc, and this should be fully 10.1 compliant now.
Since my package is a new one there is no reason to avoid such a rename, and I can work with new packages depending on it to patch them in the right way.

The package also creates a link into "amap6", so really *nobody* should *ever* use directly amap (for my case).
If they do this, yes, I call it a bug.

So please don't touch your package and I'm uploading a new version of mine with all your really nice suggestions ;)



> Cheers,
> -- 
> Charles Plessy
> Debian Med packaging team,
> http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
> Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: