* Nicholas Breen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061220 09:55]: > How would you like to handle this bug? I'm slightly reluctant to rename > the binary in gromacs for fear of breaking user scripts, but also > recognize that forutil has been using the name for many more years. > It's unclear to me which package change would be less disruptive.
Well, unless it looks like forutil should be removed, I think it has the "older" rights. However, I can understand you about breaking scripts. How about the following: You rename the binary inside of gromacs, and until release of etch, you use an symlink inside your package (plus a conflict on gromacs), so that no existing script is broken now, but people are encouraged to use the new name? (This would be a policy violation as well, but I would be willing to etch-ignore this one, because there is a good reason, and it doesn't really break stuff.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
