Re: How to handle filename conflict "aleph" (Packages aleph, tetex-bin, texlive-bin)?
Frank Küster wrote:
> Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> wrote:
>
>> Why is it better than to drop aleph? If a package is way outdated, and
>> RC buggy, and also aleph is practically unchanged since Sarge, I think
>> that is still grounds for a removal.
>
> I haven't investigated about aleph. I just thought that, since it
> doesn't have many bugs, even the current version might be useful, and
> better than nothing.
>
> If Thomas packages afnix (together with Paul or separately), that's
> probably the best choice. From a technical point of view, the package
> names could also stay the same, so that we don't need to wait for NEW
> processing (but you RMs might have a magic wand to speed up that?)
>
> Regards, Frank
It is probably worth pointing out that AFNIX isn't just Aleph with a new
name - the language and system has moved on considerably since the final
Aleph release in 2003 (see http://www.afnix.org/htm/desc.htm). So I
would not expect the upstream author to be too happy with a Debian
version of AFNIX called Aleph, or vice-versa.
I'm very new to Debian packaging and it's likely to take me a lot longer
to package AFNIX than an experienced developer (and the chances of
errors in my packaging is a lot higher). So if you need an AFNIX package
quickly I would be more than happy to stand aside and let an experienced
developer at it - you are welcome to use my work on it so far, or start
from scratch at your discretion.
Having said that, I do not think it is sensible to regard AFNIX as a new
upstream version of Aleph - it is more like a totally new package as so
much of the build system and runtime are different. Would it be wise to
rush it into Etch (even with a competent developer packaging it!)
Just for background information, I chose to package AFNIX partly because
I wanted to take my time and learn more about packaging non-trivial
systems - no-one would be in any rush for the AFNIX package, would they?
Just shows how wrong I can be....
Let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Paul
Reply to: