Re: [arch-general] "date" C++ library packaging
On 02/13/2020 02:24 AM, Morten Linderud via arch-general wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:09:27AM -0800, Brett Cornwall via arch-general > wrote: >> Waybar [1] just had an update where it pulled in a project called "date" >> [2]. I'm hesitant to package this under the name "date" since GNU coreutils >> shares a binary with that name. But this isn't a totally obscure library. >> >> Should I persuade upstream to change the name? Should I package it under >> another name? Or should I lay claim to the unused "date" package name and go >> on with my life? > > "chrono-date" could maybe work as an alternative name? > > I'm unsure why this is in [arch-general] and not [arch-dev-public] :) > And with the note that much of Howard Hinnant's date/time library is being incorporated into the next C++ standard. Quite a feather in anyone's cap. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] "date" C++ library packaging
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:09:27AM -0800, Brett Cornwall via arch-general wrote: > Waybar [1] just had an update where it pulled in a project called "date" > [2]. I'm hesitant to package this under the name "date" since GNU coreutils > shares a binary with that name. But this isn't a totally obscure library. > > Should I persuade upstream to change the name? Should I package it under > another name? Or should I lay claim to the unused "date" package name and go > on with my life? "chrono-date" could maybe work as an alternative name? I'm unsure why this is in [arch-general] and not [arch-dev-public] :) -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[arch-general] "date" C++ library packaging
Waybar [1] just had an update where it pulled in a project called "date" [2]. I'm hesitant to package this under the name "date" since GNU coreutils shares a binary with that name. But this isn't a totally obscure library. Should I persuade upstream to change the name? Should I package it under another name? Or should I lay claim to the unused "date" package name and go on with my life? [1] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/waybar/ [2] https://github.com/HowardHinnant/date signature.asc Description: PGP signature
