On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 06:30:12PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > I disagree. The two packages provide the same functionality - the ability > > to add, remove, modify and display todo lists. Alternatives routinely offer > > different option sets and commands. > > /usr/bin/todo is not registered as an alternative by devtodo, > so you cannot register it as an alternative in another package. > The conflict between devtodo and topydo is not justified. > > > I would have preferred a discussion on #976402 in advance of an RC bug > > report. > > Sorry, policy does not work that way. A policy proposal never delays a RC bug.
I realise my answer might have been a bit brutal, sorry about that. Your proposal made us uncomfortable because you seemed to conflate the introduction of a new policy-sanctioned virtual package and the introduction of a new alternative. They are related but different. In particular policy is supposed to document usage, that is virtual packages that are effectively in use. Introducing an alternative requires at least the agreement of all the maintainers of packages that are supposed to provide the alternative and to provide backward compatibility. In this instance, it can be argued that /usr/bin/todo is a bit too generic a name to be used by a single package binary. However this can only be changed after devtodo has provided a migration path to another name. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
