Re: signify and signify-openbsd names
On 2024-10-06 Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> wrote:
[...]
> I agree in principle, but I wonder if going through the effort of
> introducing a new source package 'signify-mail' and removing the current
> 'signify' will give us anything beyond doing the QA package upload to
> rename the binary package.
> The only advantage I can identify seems to be if the 'signify-openbsd'
> source package would then be able to be renamed to 'signify'. But is
> that possible? Are there any earlier examples of re-use of the same
> source package name, but for a different package? The linux-2.6 vs
> linux analogy is not identical, it is the same source package and there
> were no source package namespace re-use happening.
[...]
Hello Simon,
Afaiu Ben gave the rationale in his initial mail:
| Yes, I think you should also rename the source package signify
|
| Debbugs doesn't always properly distinguish source and binary package
| names. This goes badly when there are a source and binary package of
| the same name, but the binary package is built by a different source
| package.
If you do not rename signify(src) to signify-mail(src) the bts might mix
up bugs against signify(bin) from signify-openbsd(src) with bugs against
the source package signify.
Renaming signify-openbsd(src) to signify(src) was *not* suggested.
cu Andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
Reply to: