Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune
Paul Gevers writes ("Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune"):
> For all those that haven't followed along in the bug report, the bug got
> reassigned to whitedune. I'm not sure if I agree with the reassignment,
> but an NMU by me is hanging in DELAYED/7 to fix the conflict in
> whitedune. If people object, I'll delay it more to discuss.
I see that, apparently, this was done by NMUing whitedune to remove
the symlink and using Conflicts/Replaces in ocaml dune so that it can
still provide /usr/bin/dune.
I think that is completely opposite to the consensus in this thread
and also opposite to Debian policy.
Under the circumstances I felt I wouldn't be listened to if I simply
petitioned the maintainers of what is now src:dune again, so I have
escalated this to the TC. See #919951.
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune
Hi all,
On 18-01-2019 12:11, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> On 18.01.19 01:43, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:48:06 + Ian Jackson
>> wrote:
>>> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune"):
>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=dune+software
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(software)
>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=%2Fusr%2Fbin%2Fdune
>>>>
>>>> Under the circumstances it seems obvious that, at the very least, the
>>>> ocaml build tool should not be allowed the name /usr/bin/dune.
>
>
>
> By the way: there's also the Game "Dune". IMHO not in official Debian
> repo, but I've got it hanging around in some 3rdparty repo ...
For all those that haven't followed along in the bug report, the bug got
reassigned to whitedune. I'm not sure if I agree with the reassignment,
but an NMU by me is hanging in DELAYED/7 to fix the conflict in
whitedune. If people object, I'll delay it more to discuss.
Paul
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune
On 18.01.19 01:43, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:48:06 + Ian Jackson
> wrote:
>> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune"):
>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=dune+software
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(software)
>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=%2Fusr%2Fbin%2Fdune
>>>
>>> Under the circumstances it seems obvious that, at the very least, the
>>> ocaml build tool should not be allowed the name /usr/bin/dune.
By the way: there's also the Game "Dune". IMHO not in official Debian
repo, but I've got it hanging around in some 3rdparty repo ...
--mtx
--
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
i...@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287
Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:48:06 + Ian Jackson
wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune"):
> > https://www.google.com/search?q=dune+software
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(software)
> > https://www.google.com/search?q=%2Fusr%2Fbin%2Fdune
> >
> > Under the circumstances it seems obvious that, at the very least, the
> > ocaml build tool should not be allowed the name /usr/bin/dune.
>
> Perhaps I should have stated this explicitly, since it was not obvious
> unless you follow the links.
>
> `Dune' is not, as a piece of software, primarily either the ocaml
> build tool, or the 3D modeller.
>
> Mostly it is DUNE, a "modular C++ library for the solution of partial
> differential equations using grid-based methods". That's what you get
> if you visit the Wikipedia link I provided - not even a disambiguation
> link. The others don't rate a mention.
That C++ library is also something I was expecting to have this
(meta-)package called dune.
If the ocaml build system wants to stay within the theme, what about
"camel" ? And once they find out that there is already camel.apache.org,
rename it again to "hump" (which seems to be available).
Andreas
Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune
On 18/12/2018 17:48, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune"):
https://www.google.com/search?q=dune+software
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(software)
https://www.google.com/search?q=%2Fusr%2Fbin%2Fdune
Under the circumstances it seems obvious that, at the very least, the
ocaml build tool should not be allowed the name /usr/bin/dune.
I agree, the name space is clearly already ocupied and even whitedune is
on thin ice.
---8<--
I just checked and `odune' seems to be available. For a build tool a
reasonably short name is justified. The `o' prefix is often used with
ocaml and though there is of course a risk of clashes with both
individual programs and with some suites like the old OpenStep stuff,
it seems that `/usr/bin/odune', odune(1) et al, are not taken.
Sounds like a very reasonable solution
HTH. I know this may just be seen as my usual opinion in these
Judgement of Solomon cases and that the underlying policy is
controversial. But whenever something like this happens and causes a
major stink, it serves to demonstrate to others what they want to, and
can, avoid.
Ian.
No you have simply put into words my thoughts... +1
/Andy
Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune
Am 18.12.2018 um 18:48 schrieb Ian Jackson: > But overall I think this, plus the history of the ocaml program's > name, does demonstrate that the ocaml program's claim to the overall > software name `dune', and the command name `dune' is incredibly weak. > > I just checked and `odune' seems to be available. For a build tool a > reasonably short name is justified. The `o' prefix is often used with > ocaml and though there is of course a risk of clashes with both > individual programs and with some suites like the old OpenStep stuff, > it seems that `/usr/bin/odune', odune(1) et al, are not taken. But then again it's a build tool that actually needs to be called its name on the console (just like the node mess). whitedune is a GUI program that could have any name as long as it's obvious from the desktop metadata and in fact its webpage disappeared and it hasn't seen a new upstream version since 2011. And the C++ library doesn't seem to have a CLI name claim at all. I suppose it's mostly the point that we package all free software on the planet that we become an arbiter of names. But we should try not to be that if we can avoid it. Kind regards Philipp Kern
Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune
Even firefox was renamed twice. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune"):
> https://www.google.com/search?q=dune+software
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(software)
> https://www.google.com/search?q=%2Fusr%2Fbin%2Fdune
>
> Under the circumstances it seems obvious that, at the very least, the
> ocaml build tool should not be allowed the name /usr/bin/dune.
Perhaps I should have stated this explicitly, since it was not obvious
unless you follow the links.
`Dune' is not, as a piece of software, primarily either the ocaml
build tool, or the 3D modeller.
Mostly it is DUNE, a "modular C++ library for the solution of partial
differential equations using grid-based methods". That's what you get
if you visit the Wikipedia link I provided - not even a disambiguation
link. The others don't rate a mention.
It is already in Debian:
stretch$ apt-file search /usr/bin/dune
libdune-common-dev: /usr/bin/dune-am2cmake
libdune-common-dev: /usr/bin/dune-ctest
libdune-common-dev: /usr/bin/dune-git-whitespace-hook
libdune-common-dev: /usr/bin/dune-remove-autotools
libdune-common-dev: /usr/bin/dunecontrol
libdune-common-dev: /usr/bin/duneproject
whitedune: /usr/bin/dune
stretch$
Now of course libdune-common-dev only has various /usr/bin/dune?*
so doesn't precisely conflict with this. It would be possible for
one of whitedune and ocaml-dune (`odune?') to have /usr/bin/dune
to coexist with it.
But overall I think this, plus the history of the ocaml program's
name, does demonstrate that the ocaml program's claim to the overall
software name `dune', and the command name `dune' is incredibly weak.
I just checked and `odune' seems to be available. For a build tool a
reasonably short name is justified. The `o' prefix is often used with
ocaml and though there is of course a risk of clashes with both
individual programs and with some suites like the old OpenStep stuff,
it seems that `/usr/bin/odune', odune(1) et al, are not taken.
HTH. I know this may just be seen as my usual opinion in these
Judgement of Solomon cases and that the underlying policy is
controversial. But whenever something like this happens and causes a
major stink, it serves to demonstrate to others what they want to, and
can, avoid.
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune
Resending because
1. mailing @packages.d.o rather than @packages.qa.d.o
2. fixed one of the google urls which I broke while
removing tracking crap
Stéphane Glondu writes ("Conflict over /usr/bin/dune"):
> The "dune" package (of which I am the maintainer) is a popular build
> system for OCaml projects. It is pretty recent, has strong upstream
> support, and more and more projects are switching to it, which is a
> reason to have it in Debian.
>
> It was previously named jbuilder, but has been renamed due to a conflict
> with another software. Upstream is reluctant to rename it again.
This seems quite a striking pair of errors. `jbuilder' ? What were
they thinking ? I know language-specific communities can be a bit
insular but `jbuilder' is obviously absurd for an ocaml build tool.
And then having got into that pickle, what on earth possessed them to
pick the name `dune' ? Did they learn at all from their mistake and
think about this at all ? Do even the briefest of checks ? Even if
they couldn't be bothered to do a Debian file search,
https://www.google.com/search?q=dune+software
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(software)
https://www.google.com/search?q=%2Fusr%2Fbin%2Fdune
Under the circumstances it seems obvious that, at the very least, the
ocaml build tool should not be allowed the name /usr/bin/dune.
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: Conflict over /usr/bin/dune
Stéphane Glondu writes ("Conflict over /usr/bin/dune"):
> The "dune" package (of which I am the maintainer) is a popular build
> system for OCaml projects. It is pretty recent, has strong upstream
> support, and more and more projects are switching to it, which is a
> reason to have it in Debian.
>
> It was previously named jbuilder, but has been renamed due to a conflict
> with another software. Upstream is reluctant to rename it again.
This seems ... quite a striking error.
What on earth possessed them to pick the name `dune' ? Even if they
couldn't be bothered to do a Debian file search,
https://www.google.com/search?q=dune+software
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(software)
https://www.google.com/search?q=%2Fusr%2Fbin%2Fdune
Under the circumstances it seems obvious that no-one should be allowed
the name /usr/bin/dune.
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Conflict over /usr/bin/dune
Hi, It has been brought to my attention that both packages "whitedune" and "dune" provide the binary "/usr/bin/dune" (#916468). The situation falls directly under section 10.1 of the Policy: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s-binaries > Two different packages must not install programs with different > functionality but with the same filenames. The solution proposed by the policy is to rename one or both of the packages, after a discussion here: > [...] try to find a consensus about which program will have to be > renamed. If a consensus cannot be reached, both programs must be > renamed. The "dune" package (of which I am the maintainer) is a popular build system for OCaml projects. It is pretty recent, has strong upstream support, and more and more projects are switching to it, which is a reason to have it in Debian. It was previously named jbuilder, but has been renamed due to a conflict with another software. Upstream is reluctant to rename it again. The "whitedune" package is a graphical VRML97/X3D viewer, editor, 3D modeller and animation tool. It has existed in Debian since 2007 and its last upload to Debian (an NMU) dates back to March 2016. The version in Debian is 0.30.10 while the last upstream version [1] seems to be 0.99pl1234. The source tarball seems to date back to December 2018, so the upstream project seems well alive. In the "whitedune" package, "/usr/bin/dune" is a symbolic link to "whitedune". [1] http://wdune.ourproject.org/ Due to its nature, the build system (a command line tool) is more likely (IMHO) to be invoked as "dune" by third-parties than the desktop application. Moreover, the existence of the symlink suggests that the preferred way to call the application is through "whitedune" (and a menu entry exists). Therefore, I propose that the "whitedune" package drops the "/usr/bin/dune" symlink altogether. Cheers, -- Stéphane
