Julien Danjou writes ("libconfig name clash"):
> My arguments are the following: abz's libconfig is old, non used
> (no reverse-dependencies) and has only 40 installs according to popcon[2].
> Furthermore, it's packaged as a native Debian package and does not seems
> to be distributed anywhere. I don't see the point to have a "personnal"
> package which is not used apart from its Debian-maintainer-author in
> the archive, and blocking packaging of better and maintained software.I tend to agree with these arguments. (Although I haven't done any significant research to check the facts.) I also think that in both cases it is unfortunate that such a generic name was chosen - but this is even more so in the case of a small personal package. Those minority-interest packages I have included in my own contributions to Debian have names (for the packages and the files included) which generally aim not to clash with future uses. In summary, it was a mistake of the original author of the Debian libconfig not to choose a better name. It was also a mistake of the authors of the new upstream libconfig not to choose a better name. On balance, I would rather subject a Debian maintainer (who ought to know better) to the consequences of their poor choice of name, than try to swim upstream against a larger project. I'm very tempted to suggest a judgement of Solomon: neither package to use the name, since it is so poorly chosen. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
