Re: No reasonable solution
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 02:31:37PM +0530, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote:
> Regarding conflicts like that between "slang-slirp" and "slirp".
> (see recent bugs filed by Michael Ablassmeier <abi@grinser.de>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?submitter=abi@grinser.de
> ).
> I feel that this a currently an area not addressed by policy
> sufficiently well.
Policy says that having a consistent mapping within Debian between a program
name and its use takes precedence over consistency with other users outside
of Debian. You may disagree with this, but that doesn't mean it's not
addressed by policy. :)
> Currently, the only available solution is to use "alternatives". I
> know that this is not considered to be the correct use of alternatives
> which is meant to address different programs providing the same
> functionality. However, this is an alternative use (sorry couldn't
> resist :)) of alternatives. Perhaps we could use a different
> namespace like "choices" instead of "alternatives" as a way of
> distinguishing the objectives. The actual mechanisms could be similar
> (or even identical) to that of "alternatives".
Still inconsistent with the goals of alternatives as a whole and with the
policy requirement that a program name have a 1:1 mapping to a use.
For my part, I've never heard of slang-slirp before, and it seems obvious to
me from the naming prefix that the slirp package does have prior claim to
the name. I think this just needs to be resolved by slang-slirp changing
its binary name the same way as the package name.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: