Re: package name conflicts with oldstable [was: RFS: lsh...]
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:08:35PM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> The difference is that in your case the other source package is
> called "if-transition", so there should be no technical reason
> stopping you from renaming your package "weather".
>From an archive/build standpoint, I agree. It would, however,
possibly result in users of oldstable getting the former replaced
with the latter if it (and its dependencies) stuck around during an
upgrade, so I understand the need to, at a minimum, have one release
between removal and reuse of the same binary package name. I just
didn't know if there were additional requirements for waiting until
the release containing the previous package was archived (but I knew
there was no point in addressing it until Etch was released either
way).
> Only perhaps that "weather" may be too generic a name.
Command-line Unix utilities have a tradition of using relatively
generic executable names, and thus matching package names to cut
down on confusion (ex: dict, units). That aside, I get your point...
--
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); PGP(9E8DFF2E4F5995F8FEADDC5829ABF7441FB84657);
SMTP(fungi@yuggoth.org); IRC(fungi@irc.yuggoth.org#ccl); ICQ(114362511);
AIM(dreadazathoth); YAHOO(crawlingchaoslabs); FINGER(fungi@yuggoth.org);
MUD(fungi@katarsis.mudpy.org:6669); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); }
Reply to: