Bug#946213: RFS: git-delta/0.0.15 -- Syntax-highlighting pager for git and diff output
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:14:43PM -0800, Matthew Fernandez wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 2019, at 17:44, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote:
> > 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.
src:ninja is no more, it got dropped after jessie. And, before then:
ninja (0.1.3-3) unstable; urgency=medium
* QA upload.
* Set maintainer to the QA group.
* Convert to dh 10, 3.0 source format.
* Enable hardening. (Closes: #785152).
* Rename the daemon to ninja-daemon. (Closes: #695652).
-- Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> Fri, 09 Dec 2016 11:26:23 +0100
as it had no reason to name its executable "ninja" -- it was not something a
human would need to type. Thus, it was reasonable to rename the existing
owner to make place for an oft-invoked CLI tool.
I don't know swap-cwm. Its "delta" executable is a CLI tool thus you don't
have a stronger claim; on the other hand, it seems a nearly unused package,
with no maintainer upload for 4.5 years despite the maintainer being
otherwise active, and with a RC bug. So asking for the name might succeed,
but I wouldn't hold my breath.
It's much simpler to rename to, say, "gdelta", "gdiff" or something.
> Is this permissible because one installs to /usr/bin and the other to
> /usr/sbin?
This is not spelt explicitly in the Policy, but a consensus of a bunch of
random developers on IRC said "no", which I agree with.
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ A MAP07 (Dead Simple) raspberry tincture recipe: 0.5l 95% alcohol,
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ 1kg raspberries, 0.4kg sugar; put into a big jar for 1 month.
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Filter out and throw away the fruits (can dump them into a cake,
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ etc), let the drink age at least 3-6 months.
Reply to: