Re: Binary executable name conflicts with existing package
On ബുധന് 10 ജൂണ് 2015 03:45 വൈകു, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> Hey,
>
> * Balasankar C <balasankarc@autistici.org> [150610 04:27]:
> > Hi,
> > One of the gems I packaged recently (rexical) ships a binary executable named 'rex'. But there is already a package by perl team named 'rex' which also ships a binary of the same name.
> > This resulted in the bug #788294.
> >
> > What is the correct procedure to follow? Renaming the binary (but the users may refer to upstream readme and want rex itself) or declaring a conflict relationship between the packages (but the file they ship are "same" not in the sense of content but only in the sense of name) ?
>
> Apart from what is said in Debian policy about this, consider
> renaming the executable proactively.
>
> If the binary is not an enduser thingy, consider renaming it to
> ruby-rex. If it's an enduser thing, you'll need to come up with a
> better name (rex-security?).
> Also then patch the README and stuff.
>
> Best,
>
It is an end user thingy I suppose. I am planning to rename it to "rexical" itself. Have asked upstream about that (developer has a commit message saying moving from rex to rexical as rex was already taken. Maybe that will help).
--
Regards
Balasankar C
http://balasankarc.in
Reply to: