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
Even firefox was renamed twice.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
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
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
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.
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
