How would you like to handle this bug? I'm slightly reluctant to rename
the binary in gromacs for fear of breaking user scripts, but also
recognize that forutil has been using the name for many more years.
It's unclear to me which package change would be less disruptive.
Well, unless it looks like forutil should be removed, I think it has the
older rights.
However, I can understand you about breaking scripts. How about the
following: You rename the binary inside of gromacs, and until release of
etch, you use an symlink inside your package (plus a conflict on
gromacs), so that no existing script is broken now, but people are
encouraged to use the new name? (This would be a policy violation as
well, but I would be willing to etch-ignore this one, because there is a
good reason, and it doesn't really break stuff.)
I'd prefer not to have them conflict, since FORTRAN use is still common
in gromacs's field -- co-installability would be a benefit. Best to
bite the bullet and rename one, I think.
Since I haven't heard from Taketoshi, I'll rename the binary in gromacs
and document the change appropriately. I'd hate to see either of our
packages miss the etch release by delaying too long.
--
Nicholas Breen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
