Re: Clarification for package naming policy

[Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert@wgdd.de>]

Am Donnerstag, dem 26.05.2022 um 15:57 +0900 schrieb Marc Dequènes (duck):
> Quack,
> 
> When I packaged redmine 5.0.0 one package was missing and I created it 
> (ruby-deckar01-task-list). Now I recently received #1011414 that tells 
> me it's a duplicate o_O.
> And indeed it is, ruby-task-list is packaging the same software. Problem 
> is `apt search deckar01` returns nothing and task_list is a valid, 
> although obsolete, gem (https://rubygems.org/gems/task_list before it 
> was forked by deckar01).
> I think in this case this is really misleading and we should not 
> highjack the original name unless upstream does so. Sometimes forks 
> become incompatible and the original project resumes and both diverge 
> and one cannot be used in place of the other.

What about a

Provides: ruby-deckar01-task-list

?

Regards, Daniel