(forwarding to a related src:docker bug for more persistent posterity - #1107731 is specifically a request that we rename the src:docker package to src:wmdocker, although I'm not totally sure it's worth the churn, personally)
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Tianon Gravi <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 12 Sept 2025 at 20:23 Subject: Re: wmdocker (aka src:docker) upload 1.5-3 To: Paul Tagliamonte <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>, Debian Go Packaging Team <[email protected]> Hey Paul! On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 at 14:06, Paul Tagliamonte <[email protected]> wrote: > I just dput src:docker/wmdocker 1.5-3. I dropped bin:docker; which I > intended to do in oldstable, but haven't. The transitional package has > been around since oldoldstable. > > Now, for some hot takes (🔥) - I know we should "probably" wait a > release to hijack the binary name, but given the delta in popcon, and > the number of people who install docker looking for docker.io, I say we > just take it over this cycle. Any breakage can't be worse, and I don't > think any legitimate wmdocker users are still using 'apt install > docker', but I don't have data to back that up. > > All this to say, as a maintainer for both src:docker and src:docker.io, > I'd be very happy to see src:docker grow a bin:docker package, even if > that, too, is transitional to start. The dak auto-decrufter ought to > pick up bin:docker (as a "NBS" / "not built form source"). > > If anyone wants to rename sources (which is a thing that can be done), > we need to think that one through a bit (including porting bugs over, > and the trips through NEW), but i'm open to that too. > > We should be able to defend the technical decisions we make to the project, > but more importantly to the users -- and in my judgement, doing right by > them is to take this binary package name over this cycle. I see we definitely did the first part of this (trixie has no bin:docker \o/) but I don't think we ever did your second half, so the good news is that now we have an entire release where bin:docker is completely gone and only bin:wmdocker and bin:docker.io exist -- still feel good about adding something here for forky? :) At this point, the "docker.io" name has enough inertia that IMO it's not really worth doing the full "rename all the things" dance, but perhaps we just add "Provides: docker" to bin:docker.io and call it good? What do you think? Are there downsides to that simpler approach to taking over the package name? | $ sudo apt install -s docker | | Package docker is not available, but is referred to by another package. | This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or | is only available from another source | However the following packages replace it: | wmdocker | | | Error: Package 'docker' has no installation candidate ♥, - Tianon 4096R / B42F 6819 007F 00F8 8E36 4FD4 036A 9C25 BF35 7DD4
