It might be possible to rename the binary and symlink "drive" to it, which would allow you to give the binary name over easier
Excerpts from Joachim Breitner's message of 2015-07-04 13:45:40 -0700:
> Am Samstag, den 04.07.2015, 17:16 +0200 schrieb Sophie Brun:
> > Le 03/07/2015 21:46, Guillem Jover a écrit :
> > > drive is an extremely generic name in tech, please use something
> > > else
> > > when packaging this, both for the source/binary packages and the
> > > executables and other related files. Prefixing it with «google-»
> > > could
> > > be an option, perhaps. Doing this upstream would be preferable.
> > I followed your suggestion and opened this issue:
> > https://github.com/odeke-em/drive/issues/271
> > But upstream doesn't seem to be agreed. What do you suggest?
> you are free to choose your source and binary package name independent
> from upstream’s choice. For example, all Haskell packages are named
> haskell-foo, where upstream calls it just foo. So let upstream do what
> he likes and do what you think is best within Debian with the Debian
Indeed. However, they've selected 'drive' as their binary command name..
so following upstream's rather unfortunate namespace grab might actually
be the right way to go, to make sure it's clear 'this is the package
that owns drive in the execution path'.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
Archive: [🔎] email@example.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.debian.org/[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org