Re: How to handle filename conflict "aleph" (Packages aleph, tetex-bin, texlive-bin)?

[Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>]

Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:

> 1) Leave things alone, and ignore the problem.  This, it seems to me,
> requires some kind of go-ahead from the release team.
>
> 2) Drop aleph.  This would be warranted if it were of no use any longer,
> or if it were buggy.  But the *only* bug against Aleph is the name clash
> with TeX, so there is no independent reason to prefer this solution.
> The question remains, however, whether the current version has any use,
> and I simply don't know the answer to that.  If it does, then, as I
> said, I'm happy to maintain it.

I don't know an answer, either - but popcon gives some hints:

18170 aleph-emacs                       23     0     0     0    23 (Debian Qa Group) 
21858 aleph-doc                         12     0     0     0    12 (Debian Qa Group) 
30097 aleph                              3     1     2     0     0 (Debian Qa Group)
37868 aleph-dev                          1     0     1     0     0 (Debian Qa Group)

the 30000's are the area of the "not in sid" packages, in other words
leftovers that have never been upgraded or removed.

That's not a strong argument to keep it...

> 3) Retain aleph, and change the name of the binary in one package or the
> other.  If we don't do (2), and the release team is not happy with (1),
> then this is obviously the right course.  I don't care at all which
> program's name is changed or what it's changed to.  What are the pros
> and cons?

I'm against changing TeX's aleph.  It would be against the upstream
decision.  And knowing the information Paul gave, I suggest not to
rename to afnix, but to something like aleph-runtime or similar.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Dr. Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)