On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 03:57:20PM -0400, Eric Cooper wrote:
> 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
> conflict.
Only off the top of my head:
git/git, chromium/chromium, docker/docker, node/node
Those are all pretty big packages.
It'd be really annoying for a script to misuse a binary, which was
expecting node to be, well, node, or git to be git.
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> | Proud Debian Developer
: :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag
`- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature