Re: Updating the policy for conflicting binaries names ? [was: Re: Re: New package netgen-lvs with binary /usr/bin/netgen - already taken]
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 2:29 AM Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Le 08/09/2018 à 18:39, Sean Whitton a écrit :
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Fri 07 Sep 2018 at 10:10PM +0200, Ruben Undheim wrote:
> >
> >> However, I think the policy gives us a lot of freedom to choose (it is not very
> >> strict in this case).
> >
> > I don't understand. This seems pretty strict:
> >
> > Two different packages must not install programs with different
> > functionality but with the same filenames.
> >
> I think the policy should be changed.
> It was possible to accommodate that when the archive was a few thousand packages.
> Now that it is much bigger, that floss are everywhere, packages are being forked,
This is indeed annoy nowadays. And on the other hand, many software
authors don't take serious on naming, just picking some common words.
But I see it's problem in FHS, which has one namespace for binary.
> we might want to update the policy to give more flexibility.
> For example, in the Rust team, we have been discussing about packaging fd (a find alternative developed using rust [1]).
> We are planning to install it in /usr/bin/fd .. but this conflicts with something completely different, fdclone a clone
> of fd, a MS-DOS file browser...
> While this is probably fun, with a declining popcon (104 today), and no upstream release since 2013,
It's not true, at least I find the latest release is last month[1]
[1] http://www.unixusers.net/ml/FDclone-users/201808/msg00000.html (in Japanese)
--
Shengjing Zhu
Reply to: