It might be possible to rename the binary and symlink "drive" to it, which would allow you to give the binary name over easier On 5 Jul 2015 9:11 am, "Clint Byrum" <spam...@debian.org> wrote:
> Excerpts from Joachim Breitner's message of 2015-07-04 13:45:40 -0700: > > Hi, > > > > Am Samstag, den 04.07.2015, 17:16 +0200 schrieb Sophie Brun: > > > Le 03/07/2015 21:46, Guillem Jover a écrit : > > > > drive is an extremely generic name in tech, please use something > > > > else > > > > when packaging this, both for the source/binary packages and the > > > > executables and other related files. Prefixing it with «google-» > > > > could > > > > be an option, perhaps. Doing this upstream would be preferable. > > > > > > I followed your suggestion and opened this issue: > > > https://github.com/odeke-em/drive/issues/271 > > > But upstream doesn't seem to be agreed. What do you suggest? > > > > you are free to choose your source and binary package name independent > > from upstream’s choice. For example, all Haskell packages are named > > haskell-foo, where upstream calls it just foo. So let upstream do what > > he likes and do what you think is best within Debian with the Debian > > package. > > > > Indeed. However, they've selected 'drive' as their binary command name.. > so following upstream's rather unfortunate namespace grab might actually > be the right way to go, to make sure it's clear 'this is the package > that owns drive in the execution path'. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1436050805-sup-4...@fewbar.com > >
