Re: Proposal to avoid executable naming conflicts (was: Bug#753704: ITP: amap -- Next-generation scanning tool for pentesters)
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 06:57:02AM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:31:12AM -0400, Eric Cooper wrote:
> > Since Debian package names must already be unique, we ought to be able
> > to leverage that to avoid having to fight over which package gets to
> > claim which binary name.
> > What about making it into a user's install-time decision,
> > rather than a developer's packaging-time decision?
> Wouldn't you get sick of 'that name has already been taken, please
> try another.' message?
Given how infrequently this issue has cropped up over the years, no.
And a prioritization (like mailcap.order) would limit it to once per
Eric Cooper e c c @ c m u . e d u