Bug#946213: RFS: git-delta/0.0.15 -- Syntax-highlighting pager for git and diff output
> On Dec 10, 2019, at 17:44, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 08:30:44PM -0500, Dan Davison wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 at 22:31, Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 9:36 PM Dan Davison wrote:
>>>
>>>> Currently (FreeBSD, Rust Cargo, Arch Linux, Homebrew) the package name
>>> is "git-delta", which installs an executable named "delta". Can it do the
>>> same for Debian?
>>>
>>> There is one package already using that executable name:
>>>
>>> $ apt-file search bin/delta
>>> swap-cwm: /usr/bin/delta
>
>> You might be right that my naming was suboptimal! Indeed, even the
>> git-prefixed package name isn't great because the syntax highlighter works
>> for unified diff in addition to git output. However, I'm not sure I'm ready
>> to make this breaking change for the existing users yet. Is it an option to
>> distribute it for now with the same name as it is currently distributed
>> under in ArchLinux, Homebrew, FreeBSD, Windows and Rust Cargo? I.e.
>> package: "git-delta"
>> executable: "delta"
>
>> Specifically, are either of the following options?
>>
>> 1. Package "git-delta" installing executable "delta" (install fail/denied
>> if user has the other package installed)
>> 2. Package "git-delta" installing executables "delta" and alias "git-delta"
>> (only the alias installed if "delta" exists?)
>
> Sorry, having an executable in $PATH named "delta" is not an option at all.
> Policy §10.1.
I am not involved in this present RFS and §10.1 is perfectly clear, but how does this apply to some existing packages? Specifically, I’m thinking about ninja and ninja-build. Both install a binary called ‘ninja’ albeit to different paths. Is this permissible because one installs to /usr/bin and the other to /usr/sbin?
Reply to: