Re: Solving a file conflict between package "nq" / "fq"
On 10.05.2024 14:53, Bill Allombert wrote: Le Mon, May 06, 2024 at 11:09:14PM +0200, Preuße, Hilmar a écrit : Hi Bill, thanks for the answer! during the preparation of a new version of package "nq" (via NMU) it was found that there exists a file conflict with package "fq" (#1005961), which was incorrectly solved in the past. For now I unarchived and reopened the old issue. According to the policy: As first approximation, the oldest package win, for the simple reason that doing the other way would break users scripts, and it is not in the interest of Debian to encourage upstream to hijack each other program names. Well, then: nq is the older package and has a (slightly) higher popcon. After that the maintainers or the ctte could agree to operate a transition to other names. Is there anything, which needs to be done from maintainer side? Hilmar -- sigfault OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Solving a file conflict between package "nq" / "fq"
Le Mon, May 06, 2024 at 11:09:14PM +0200, Preuße, Hilmar a écrit : > Hi all, > > during the preparation of a new version of package "nq" (via NMU) it was > found that there exists a file conflict with package "fq" (#1005961), which > was incorrectly solved in the past. For now I unarchived and reopened the > old issue. According to the policy: > > "Two different packages must not install programs with different > functionality but with the same filenames. (...) If this case happens, one > of the programs must be renamed. The maintainers should report this to the > debian-devel mailing list and try to find a consensus about which program > will have to be renamed. (...)" > > Hence I contact this list. Is there a formal process to generate decisions / > consensus? Please note that I'm not the maintainer of "nq" and I'm not in > the position to rename binaries to solve file conflicts. As first approximation, the oldest package win, for the simple reason that doing the other way would break users scripts, and it is not in the interest of Debian to encourage upstream to hijack each other program names. After that the maintainers or the ctte could agree to operate a transition to other names. Cheers, -- Bill. Imagine a large red swirl here.
Solving a file conflict between package "nq" / "fq"
Hi all, during the preparation of a new version of package "nq" (via NMU) it was found that there exists a file conflict with package "fq" (#1005961), which was incorrectly solved in the past. For now I unarchived and reopened the old issue. According to the policy: "Two different packages must not install programs with different functionality but with the same filenames. (...) If this case happens, one of the programs must be renamed. The maintainers should report this to the debian-devel mailing list and try to find a consensus about which program will have to be renamed. (...)" Hence I contact this list. Is there a formal process to generate decisions / consensus? Please note that I'm not the maintainer of "nq" and I'm not in the position to rename binaries to solve file conflicts. Hilmar -- sigfault OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
