Hey, * Balasankar C <[email protected]> [150610 04:27]: > Hi, > One of the gems I packaged recently (rexical) ships a binary executable named > 'rex'. But there is already a package by perl team named 'rex' which also > ships a binary of the same name. > This resulted in the bug #788294. > > What is the correct procedure to follow? Renaming the binary (but the users > may refer to upstream readme and want rex itself) or declaring a conflict > relationship between the packages (but the file they ship are "same" not in > the sense of content but only in the sense of name) ?
Apart from what is said in Debian policy about this, consider renaming the executable proactively. If the binary is not an enduser thingy, consider renaming it to ruby-rex. If it's an enduser thing, you'll need to come up with a better name (rex-security?). Also then patch the README and stuff. Best, -- ,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler <[email protected]> : :' : Debian Developer `. `' 7D1A CFFA D9E0 806C 9C4C D392 5C13 D6DB 9305 2E03 `-
pgpOLEX1srNKj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
