On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:37:35 -0400 Barry Warsaw <ba...@debian.org> wrote: > I think the best we can do is add a Conflicts between the two packages. The > contents of the conflicting directories are different. Personally, I think > it's a bug that the two upstreams install these into the top-level namespace, > but given the nature of the packages, I can see why they did it this way. > > I'll upload a Conflicts for future and will begin the NMU for python-pies.
As I discussed with Barry on IRC, I think this situation is a naming conflict that falls within the scope of policy 10.1. While the specific files may provide the same/similar functionality, the packages do not so Conflicts or Update Alternatives are not appropriate solutions. We did do a bit of investigation and it does not seem to me that renaming/moving the python-futures files is feasible. The point of the package is to provide things like this generally. Python-pies has a small rdpends set so I think moving the duplicated files in it is more tractable and makes more sense. Scott K _______________________________________________ Python-modules-team mailing list Python-modules-team@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-modules-team
