Bug#864428: RFS: bitfield/0.6.3-1 [ITP #864358]
On 5 July 2017 at 11:55, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi, Andrew.
>> Obviously you've come first and taken the name
> Well, it's not so obvious to me. It looks like it is me, and not the author of the other package, who created the name conflict. The software that you intend to package dates back to 2006 (files in the tarball) or 2009 (commits in the git repo), so it definitely predates mine. When I started my project, I did not know about any other software that would have the same name, be under active development/usage, offer a similar functionality etc. Mea culpa. Had I known about your package, I would (and should) have chosen a different name. I guess, the best thing I can do now is rename my package.
>> I guess I'll have to figure out what my package should be called, but just giving you a
>> heads up that there might be a somewhat similarly named package soon.
> I recognize the .. hm ... primogeniture of your package. Please feel free to use the original name.
>> If you have any thoughts on what name I should pick to be least
>> confusing, I'd love to know - I'm currently thinking
>> "bitfield-decoder" or something along those lines.
> I'm thinking about renaming my ITP and RFS bugs to clear the way for your package, but frankly speaking, I am new to Debian's BTS and have yet to figure out how to go about it.
I don't know, "bitfield" is a pretty generic term and there's probably
a dozen other projects out there by that name. This project is just a
fairly obscure python script that's very much in maintenance mode now,
whereas your library is clearly under active development. I'm inclined
to think that naming priority deserves to go to the project with more
future potential :)
Unless you really really want to come up with a new name, I'm inclined
to submit mine under the name "bitfield-decoder".