On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 21:20 +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > We've got a problem here, since all three packages are in testing, > provide /usr/bin/aleph, and conflict with each other (or rather, the > *tex* packages conflict with aleph). Eek. > > The right solution to this would be to package the "new upstream version" > of aleph, which changes the name to afnix. However, the aleph package > has been orphaned (#374120), and the ITP afnix has not yet yielded a > package. I wouldn't want to rely on that for etch (although this is the > first time I contact Paul about this, so I might be wrong). I am happy to adopt the package and do whatever uploads (including packaging the new upstream version) may be necessary. However, if the program is now called afnix, presumably the package name should change too, which will require NEW queue processing too. > > If there'll be no afnix package in etch, the only other solution to this > problem seems to be to remove aleph from testing - any NMUing won't make > sense without doing the actual work of packaging afnix. Another possibility is to NMU aleph to change the binary to /usr/bin/afnix, since this is already upstream's approach according to your report. > To me it seems as if the current situation is better than having no > aleph/afnix at all. However, it violates the release policy. I agree with your assessment of the relative merits here. If there is no fix availing, I think we should just let this policy violation go, though it isn't my call. Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part