Hi. Do you think there is still any point to avoid using 'bingo' here? There is no naming clash. While we could rename this source and/or binary package, the Go team naming policy is to use the upstream name, which is 'bingo', and I can't see that there will ever be any conflict with your 'libbingo*' namespace here. https://go-team.pages.debian.net/packaging.html#_naming_conventions So my preference is to go with the Go naming guideline here. Let me know if you still think it would be useful to avoid 'bingo' here. I plan to upload to NEW shortly. /Simon Andrius Merkys <merkys@debian.org> writes: > Hi, > > On 2025-10-24 10:41, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Andrius Merkys <merkys@debian.org> writes: >>> What binary package names do you think you are going to need? I am >>> thinking to introduce new binary packages for src:indigo which >>> according to shlib naming rules will most likely be bin:libbingoX and >>> libbingo-dev. Will there be a clash? >> I don't think 'bingo' is likely to be an important end-user package, >> I >> can rename it to 'golang-bingo' (or something else?) if that makes >> things easier? This is a Go developers tool. > > Not sure there will be a need for bin:bingo from src:indigo. Bingo is > a database add-on, thus if packaged, there most likely will be > packages like bin:postgresql-* or bin:mariadb-plugin-*. > >> It won't provide any libbingo* shared libraries, so no collision there. > > Good then! > >> I suppose it will ship /usr/bin/bingo though, would that be a problem? >> Do 'indigo' provide a /usr/bin/bingo or is likely to do so? > > No, no problem. It is unlikely there will be anything to install under > /usr/bin/ at all. > >> Tentative debian/control is here: >> https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/bingo/-/blob/debian/sid/debian/control?ref_type=heads > > Thanks. > > Andrius >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature