On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:41:05AM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
I just sponsored the ninja-build package. I realize now that I may
have missed one point: does it need to conflict with package ninja ?
ninja-build will provide usr/bin/ninja, while ninja provides
usr/sbin/ninja.
The policy requires a Conflicts only when two packages provide the
same file [1]. It is implicitly assumed that file means full path to
file IMHO. However for filename in PATH, this might be an issue.
While, as Arno mentioned, you are not allowed to use that name, this is
a case where it would be good to ask the maintainer of ninja the root
process logger to migrate his executable to something else.
As a make replacement, ninja[-build] is something one runs from the
command line tens or hundreds of times a day. The other ninja is a daemon
that's never run interactively, and its executable is referenced only from
an init script.
One such case in the past was git vs gnuit -- and there, the other tool
is something interactive, with 1367 popcon score. ninja has mere 39
installs.
--
Copyright and patents were never about promoting culture and innovations;
from the very start they were legalized bribes to give the king some income
and to let businesses get rid of competition. For some history, please read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
