On ബുധന് 10 ജൂണ് 2015 03:45 വൈകു, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > 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, > It is an end user thingy I suppose. I am planning to rename it to "rexical" itself. Have asked upstream about that (developer has a commit message saying moving from rex to rexical as rex was already taken. Maybe that will help).
-- Regards Balasankar C http://balasankarc.in -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
